Talk:James Holmes (mass murderer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Top of the top

Per the site below, at UCR, highest honors is reserved for the top 2% and typically seems to be a GPA of 3.91 (not exact for Holmes's specific year, but should be close): http://chassstudentaffairs.ucr.edu/graduation/

So the UCR chancellor wasn't calling Holmes "top of the top" because he was just an honors student. The top 2% does deserve the phrase he used. Ajoykt (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

From the transcript:

{Are you aware of any kind of accomplishments he had?} He was an honors student. So academically he was at the top of the top. He really distinguished himself from an academic point of view during his four years with us. He graduated with highest honors.

In context, the chancellor was being further asked about the suspect's accomplishments. But what honors these were were vague, and he says that he was an honors student...and SO he was at the top of the top, being an honors student. It seems more like a blanket statement. If he was some well-known top student, why wouldn't that have been mentioned earlier? I don't think the chancellor's response should be included at all, anyways. Just trying to make it accurate and in context. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are omitting the chancellor's last sentence: He graduated with *highest* honors (emphasis mine). See my post above. Ajoykt (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not our place to judge that being in the top 2% makes him the "top of the top" either, or to assume that the chancellor meant that; nor is it our place to say the top 2% of students "deserve" to be called that. The chancellor said he was an honors student, so was considered top of the top. Perhaps just mention that he graduated with highest honors, making him in the top 2% of students? (For what it's worth, I certainly wouldn't consider the top 2% to be the "top of the top" of anything. But again, you're drawing conclusions that shouldn't be drawn, especially editing a BLP article. I'm only being as pedantic as I have been because anything related to the suspect *is* a BLP issue. So I like to err on the side of caution when it's unclear what was said or meant.)

As for later mentioning that he graduated with highest honors: why does that mean anything, other than that maybe the article should note that he graduated with highest honors? You can't do things like say "oh, well that makes him in the top 2%, so that means he was indeed the top of the top." WP:NOR – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But you are the one who drew the inference that when the chancellor said "top of the top" what he meant was the guy was an honors student. I agree we shouldn't try to infer the chancellor's mind; hence we just quote him. You wanted to "determine" context; if we take that path, then we need to look at all of the context, including the last sentence. I didn't say he was in the top 2% in the article, but the talk page rules are a bit less strict.Ajoykt (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just want to remind you that this article is not owned by you or anyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is unwarranted. Intense, civil, debate is very much the way of Wikipedia. Ajoykt (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the kicker for me is his use of the word "so." He said "He was an honors student. So, ..." (in the context of having noted that he was a honors student, and continuing on to note that, so, etc.) It wasn't made as a sole statement. The transcript is also just a transcript, though I'll admit I haven't listened to the audio. I don't know if it's needed, since the so makes it clear that he was making a general comment on what makes a "top of the top" student, not that he necessarily considered Holmes as such himself, or even knew him. Quoting it without that context even suggests the chancellor was personally aware of him, which doesn't seem to be supported from other comments. So again, considering the compounding "so" is *not* drawing an incorrect inference, it's putting together the connection the chancellor made via his own language. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my edit. I am just anal about removing statements in BLP until consensus or a neutral statement is agreed to during discussion. I didn't realize consensus had been reached.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this, but there are a couple of sentences on the article about the shooting that states Holmes took 100mg of Vicodin before the attack began. The next sentence says that "Vicodin comes in pills of 500mg and up," implying that taking 100mg is impossible. Vicodin is a combination of two different drugs: hydrocodone and acetaminophen (Tylenol). A common dosage in a single pill is 10mg of hydrocodone and 500mg of acetaminophen, which is usually described as 10mg/500mg or 10/500 for short. Whether or not Holmes actually took the drug is still unconfirmed, I believe. However, since Vicodin is a combination of two drugs, it could be possible that Holmes ingested 100mg of hydrocodone and 5,000mg or 3,250mg of acetaminophen. While this would technically be an overdose and could cause damage to the liver, it likely wouldn't be life-threatening. Just wanted to clarify that a bit. It isn't really relevant, but the article says he took "100mg of Vicodin," which does not make much sense because Vicodin is two different drugs in one pill.

Suspect status

If he already confessed, and there have been substantial and numerous evidence against him; How is his status in this article (and actually, in most of the media) a suspect? Doesn't suspicion ends and certainty begins when there is evidence and a confession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.215.1.7 (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty pretty much covers this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To be sure - presumed innocent until proven guilty, thoughEugene-elgato (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, to the OP, actually, he hasn't confessed, and Wikipedia is not a court of law. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would be more appropriate, at this point, to call him the alleged shooter, rather than just a suspect considering the forthcoming charges. 174.84.195.200 (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the presumption of innocence being applied to everyone ... but isn't James Holmes's guilt a matter of established fact? It's un-deniable, now. Does the universe really require the US judicial system to determine whether or not someone is "proven guilty"? So while I whole-heartedly agree with innocent-until-proven-guilty, I don't see what more proof is required. 99.102.86.77 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on the prosecution so until he is convicted then he is only a suspect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.233.215 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, of course every single person who confesses to a crime is guilty, of course. There are no innocent people in jail. Also there are unicorns but they are invisible and we can't see them, and there are leprechauns guarding pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

Nevart (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that Nevart. But those people are extremely few and far between. However, I think this should be a case of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, simply because having the word 'suspected' there seems like we are saying that there is a chance that he is not the killer, which takes credibility from the page itself. 68.188.174.173 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to be so politically correct. It is true that people are legally "innocent until proven guilty" in most countries. But as far as I'm concerned, that is only a formality. The shooter may or may not be convicted in a court of law, but that doesn't change what he did (or didn't do) in the past. I think that for cut-and-dry cases like this - especially when the perpetuator doesn't deny the allegations - it should be OK to state that "he did it" as long as we make it clear that the suspect is legally innocent.

On the other hand, if the suspect vehemently denies the accusations - like in the case of Troy Davis - we should still be careful, even when they are convicted. Just my two cents. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Other merger opinions

MERGE PAGE WITH AURORA INCIDENT

During the past week many other incidents happened in the world that lead to the death of innocent people and I don’t see a pages in Wikipedia for the heroes that tried to prevent them. So this page for a murder has no sense to me and contributes to nothing he does not deserve it and should not have a page of his own. Please merge with the Aurora tragic event.

--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Who does and does not deserve it does not matter on Wikipedia. This is an Encyclopedia and it will have information about people like this whether you like it or not. You say something about heroes not having pages, well if they received lots of attention like James Holmes did then they would have their own article. United States Man (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA NOT A NEWSPAPER

You are right this is an Encyclopedia to search information about notable people, is not a newspaper where you read articles about people involved in an event that gives them some attention for a short period of time. I can cite many names of people who had the media attention for a a while that do not have the merrit to have a page in Wikipedia. I insist that he should not have a page, but be mention in the tragic event. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum is a good example of this phenomenon. 99.102.86.77 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

External Image

I'm concerned by {{external image}} in the article. The source cannot be identified and there is no way to make sure we are not linking to copyrighted information violations. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is mentioned on the admin incidents noticeboard (Resolved)

Just a heads up to those that edit this article The Red Pen of Doom has placed a notice reguarding this article here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#James Eagan Holmes - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Fully protected for two days

I've protected the article for two days. Work it out here, but stop reverting each other. This isn't endorsing the current version, it is just the version that existed when I mashed the red button. Any admin is free to modify this without permission if a consensus is reached or there is no more concern about warring, but a note on my talk page afterwords is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit: Just wanted to disambiguate MDT to Mountain Daylight Time in the Detention and arraignment section. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Admin User:Qwyrxian might like to consider the fairness of continuing to edit the article when we mere mortals are prevented by page protection? WWGB (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Black Kite has brought up the issue with him on his talk page. I would prefer to give Qwyrxian the option of self-reverting here, for what was very likely an unintentional bypass of protection. I've also dropped a note there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened is that I had the editing window open in the morning and started my edit, then started work, and didn't finish it until lunch time. In the meantime, the article was protected, but apparently that doesn't trigger an Edit Conflict, so I didn't notice. I've self-reverted. I definitely think the part needs to come out, but it's by no means critical enough for me to bypass protection. Sorry if I confused anyone Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Put that "bit" in here so that those of us who are interested can at least see what the controversy is about. Maybe it should not go on the article right away but if there are any facts that can help us to better understand this person and the situation then it would be appreciated if you did post it somewhere, even if only on the talk page (and yes, I know that is not what talk page should be for, but this is an exceptional incident). This is only a request, of course. Nevart (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• strong support for full protection, per WP:The Wrong Version however long its needed. (Although this isn't up for a vote)--Robert Keiden (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not really clear on why you chose the protect this page instead of just blocking the editor who violated 3RR. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I chose protection as it was the least aggressive way to maintain the article while the merge discussion continued, and there was at least a rational basis for Red Pen to think he was reverting using legitimate exemptions to 3RR, although he was mistaken. I assumed good faith, in other words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So a page with 114,000 views in one day cannot be maintained or upgraded because one editor had a dummy spit? I struggle with the logic. WWGB (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I concur. I honestly don't have a real opinion on whether the article should be kept or not, but as long as the article exists, there are a number of places where the writing should be cleaned up (such as the first sentence of the section about the shooting). I think it's embarrassing for such a high-visibility article to appear poorly edited (not to mention absent of new information that may be released), and I don't understand at all why this step is necessary when the edit history indicates a single user causing the problems before the lock. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to comply with WP:PERP until any discussion may conclude that we for some reason want to IAR

Per the simple language of WP:PERP this article should not exist as a stand alone. It should be redirected to 2012_Aurora_shooting#Suspect. While there may be a discussion going on to decide whether we should WP:IAR and let a stand alone article exist, until that decision has been completed the offending page should be redirected. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not work like that, if the article is merged fine but while the discussion is in place the article should remain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. This comes across as a super sleazy attempt at undermining proper consensus. It should be noted that I agree with your conclusion on what should eventually happen to this article, but the ends don't justify the means--and I don't think this is the right way of going about it. IShadowed (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He is asking for a procedural change based on policy, not one based on consensus. I've protected the page and would say a different admin should handle this request. I have no opinion one way or another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; I would say this, because I believe it should be merged, but he clearly doesn't pass WP:PERP at the moment (obviously fails criteria 1, and criteria 2 would be WP:CRYSTAL), so I'd suggest it probably should be redirected if/until there is a consensus to spin it out again. My only concern would that people would start shovelling trivial crap into the section about him in the main article. Black Kite (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

per black kite i withdraw my request-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While we have a request open should we discuss the wording of the first sentence? It reads 'suspected perpetrator'. Should this be changed to 'charged with' or something similar? Doesn't really matter to me anymore.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On a point of order, you can't IAR on BLP, or any other Foundation-derived directives. They're there for legal reasons, not to represent agreed practices. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is a WMF violation should we ask them about it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This has already been brought up on the BLP Noticeboard and the Admin board so far so if it was really a violation it would have been removed by now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that we can't decide to ignore BLP. For example, we can say "London is the capital of the United Kingdom" and ignore the rule of verifiability that says we should source that (but it's trivially easy to do so anyway). But we can't make a decision to ignore the rule that all BLPs must follow all of our content policies and guidelines, because that could easily put the project in legal trouble. If a representative of the Foundation, in their official role, were to delete this article, we would have to abide by that judgement even if a hundred editors were to disagree with it. Essentially, even though Wikiality does exist (I can personally attest: the phrase "lux aeterna" was virtually unsearched for until the creation of the article about the Requiem for a Dream theme music.), we can't force people to accept our reality by consensus, especially when it may be unlawful. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It would help a lot, if you would make clear where the article actually violates WP:BLP. Is it lacking verifyability, is the POV not neutral enough, or is something original research? If anything is violating one of these, point it out, so it can be fixed. Other than that, BLP1E, ONEEVENT, PERP and BLPCRIME all leave a lot of wiggle room, which is why this discussion has not yet ended. Your interpretation, my interpretation, anybody else's interpretation, whose is right? Everybody is yelling: "MINE!" (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

WP:PERP (also called WP:CRIME which red pen invokes doesn't apply. See note #5 in WP:BLP:

BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.

That refers to individuals who were well-known before the event. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request about the Gun Range

In section 2 it says that he applied to join a gun range, a request that was denied. The reference says the owner of the gun range was trying to get a hold of him for a mandatory orientation class... He could not reach him, I don't think his application was "denied," I think he just didn't complete the application process. The implication is that for some reason he was refused membership which I think infringes on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Robert Beck (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• So make an actionable request. Provide some alternative, better, wording. Uncle G (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need all that detail. We could just state that he applied, management was wary, and he was arrested before a decision type thing. They can read the detail in the sources if they wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's bad enough that the mainstream media is introducing bias without you encouraging it here on Wikipedia. We are not meant to be biased. There is no suggestion by Beck162 that management were "wary" of the applicant. He said that there is a conflict with the way it is being presented (that they were wary) and what really happened (that is was an administrative problem and nothing more). By suggesting that the request was "denied" you are introducing bias, which makes this propaganda. Wikipedia is not a propaganda outlet, it is an information outlet. The propagandists already have sufficient outlets for their purposes, I hope none of us will be stupid enough to allow Wikipedia to become an additional one. Nevart (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just suggesting an alternate wording. He was not denied. Management was wary, curiuos, suspicious, etc and the application process was never completed before he was arrested. I didn't see a term from the source that we can use though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in the "Aurora theater shooting"-section may be removed entirely, as there is a more detailed account given in the "Actions prior to July 20"-section. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC))

Done - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to Change "Known For"

I wonder if others would agree that the label Known for Suspect in mass shooting should be change to Known for Alleged Shooter now that allegations have been made in a court of law, and charges are forthcoming. Suspect seems too vague and usually reserved for those prior to arrest. Many reports are referring to him as such. 174.84.195.200 (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should just be 'charged in connection with'. We are already bending/breaking WP:PERP with the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not charged yet. 174.84.195.200 (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Arrested in connection with?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Jailed as alleged shooter in connection with mass shooting? 174.84.195.200 (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

'arrested in connection with Aurora' gets similar hits. We don't need a 'known for' phrase at all because it is a given that he is known for someting.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Have you considered that infobox template parameters do not have to be filled in? If it's impossible to state properly after the words "known for", then filling in an infobox that does that isn't the correct thing to do, and explaining things in the article prose proper in some other way is the route to take. Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"[removed as per BLP -Canoe1967]". 174.84.195.200 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

.. or even, "Known for [removed as per BLP -Canoe1967] 174.84.195.200 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I blanked it; that seemed to be the least controversial action. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange appearance at hearing

Is it worth noting that his hearing appearnace was odd? This is already noted over the the Aurora shootings page...

"The 24-year-old said nothing and barely looked to be following what was happening. His head bobbed from side to side, his eyes sometimes wide, other times almost closed. He stared into the middle distance and often seemed to be struggling to stay awake. It was so strange and so pronounced that talk immediately turned to whether he had been heavily medicated or sedated."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/accused-colorado-killer-appears-in-court/4149584 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18957991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.244.3.45 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"talk immediately turned" does not look like RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This matter is extremely relevant to the topic and deserves full mention. Omitting this information is propagandist because the information is true. Not reporting all the known facts is a typical strategy of propaganda, and Wikipedia editors and writers should not knowingly participate in that practice. 58.96.89.195 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved edit requests

Aurora theater shooting section, last sentence in incorrect. He was not denied. Details are in Actions prior to July 20 section above so entire sentence can be removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

PROTEST FOR THIS ARTICLE'S IMMEDIATE DELETION

I would like to personally protest there being an article for Mr. Holmes on Wikipedia it is an encyclopedia not an newspaper and when I bring down an encyclopedia of Britannica I do not find the sensationalist stories like the one included in here it should not be on Wikipedia not just for obvious reasons that this is simply giving this person the fame he was after, it does not warrant a whole article since this is a single event in his life his name warrants conclusion in the article about the shootings but not his own article also everything in this article (the investigation into Holmes his trial, motives public perception) will simply be repeated on the article about the massacre since it is the story of the massacre just because he was involved does not mean he should have a biography

What about the victims involved should not each of them have their own pages because there part as innocent victims is what made this a massacre and are not their lives forever involved with this massacre as much as Holmes. but There names will be only mentioned in the article about the shooting massacre so how is that fair. I know there is past precedent for this (such as the Virginia Tec shooter) but that should all be changed as well with their names and investigations only mentioned in the pages about the massacres they inflicted as well

I hate to think this but who knows some of them might think having their own Wikipedia page is cool. This page as well as those others all sully the name of Wikipedia making this website not fitting the standards of an encyclopedia all should be removed and let's start that change with this article right now! [[User:Algon quin7|Algonquin7]] (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true, nearly all encyclopedias (of any repute) will have articles specifically about Lee Harvey Oswald (for example) as well as coverage of the actual crime, as well as a general article about assassination. What you are requiring (and for no other reason than "sensitivity" which should not even be a consideration at all) is that people should have to know what James Holmes did in order to get information about him, which is unreasonable. Somebody who randomly heard the name somewhere should be able to look that up and find out why the name is significant, and also that when people do look up the name they will find many people of that name listed. I think the stance that somebody might be offended by the entry so it should be taken down is going way too far. The entry deserves to stand on its merits and it has many.Nevart (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: WP:NOTCENSORED - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I disagree sir, it should be part of the Wiki; That is because Wikipedia is not and never will be an Encyclopedia due to the fact that it completely lacks scientific, investigative, specialized and professional merit. I'm not saying it is a completely bad thing, though. Wikipedia is basically a dump or a container of random information, factoids, mixed vastly and majorly with Pop culture information and then some science, math and scholastic information. 189.215.1.7 (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is typical academic nonsense, the fact is that because anybody can edit a wikipedia page it means that this is the ultimate "peer review" because any disinformation can be caught and fixed before it spreads too far. Discouraging academic use of Wikipedia has been extremely counter-productive because it means that more of the "peers" on Wikipedia are not academically qualified, but that does not in any way detract from the quality of the contributions or the people that assist in writing and editing. What I mean to say is that more academic involvement would balance out the stranger things. Also fewer prudes and crusaders would be a good thing.Nevart (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is better than Britannica because there's less elitism and exclusionary nonsense in WP, where you'll find interesting facts and important points in WP that you really won't find in Britannica or any other online encyclopedia controlled dogmatically by "experts" in their supposed fields. Did you, IP address, ever think that those "factoids" and "pop culture information" points are things average people want to know about or understand or learn, and can be enlightened by? WP is of course not perfect, but the fact that anyone can add and edit (adhering to important standards and policies) actually has proven to make the articles better, more interesting, more informative, and more educational...and more enlightening. Because sometimes a non-accredited person (but who may have some knowledge of the matter in various ways) knows things about a given subject that a stuff-shirt "expert" in his arrogance might miss. Compare the article on John Adams in Britannica to the one in Wikipedia, and see which is better and more insightful. As one of many examples. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Algonquin7: If you are personally offended that Wikipedia is "giving this person the fame he was after" why not protest CBS, CNN, the Associated Press & the New York Times? They are spreading his name far more widely that Wikipedia is... In 356 BC, Herostratus, seeking notoriety, burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. He proudly claimed credit in an attempt to immortalise his name. To dissuade those of a similar mind, the Ephesian authorities not only executed him, but attempted to condemn him to a legacy of obscurity by forbidding mention of his name (damnatio memoriae) under penalty of death. However, this did not stop Herostratus from achieving his goal as the ancient historian Theopompus recorded the event and its perpetrator in his Hellenics. So, damnatio memoriae didn't work in the ancient world, and doesn't work today... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should stay. As already said do we remove Lee Harvey Oswald? That and trying to cover his name up will only cause a Streisand effect and make it worse as people go hunting for it and moving it back up in news. --216.81.94.75 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

All of the information about his motives, trial and punishment are going to be included on the massacre page so it is redundant to give him his own page and unnecessary for people to know who he is, also I said besides the obvious reasons of sensitivity; there is a big difference between lee Harvey Oswald and Holmes also if you want to argue for its inclusion that's fine it is why I started this discussion but please do not insult me as a prude or crusader let's keep this conversation civil Algonquin7 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

>and unnecessary for people to know who he is....

Seriously? You really said that? What is your personal stake in all this? Are you personally involved in this incident in any way? Otherwise this zealous anti-freedom-of-speech campaign doesn't make much sense. It's nothing personal, I don't know anything about you and do not mean to insult you, but it certainly does seem that you're on a personal crusade to deny James Holmes his place in the limelight. Nevart (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You make sound like a bad thing to try deny Holmes his moment in the limelight I'm not saying people should not know him I'm saying they be more than able to know him on the page about the massacre everything in his wikipage is going to on there anyway so if we don't have to give him a wikipage let's not it be redundant to do anyway calling my legitimate objections "zealous anti-freedom-of-speech campaign doesn't make much sense" sounds pretty personal to me and is unnnecessary insult learn wiki civility as for me I think your all still wrong and skewering my arguements that if he does'nt need a page since it all be on the massacre page it is unnecessary and let's deny him that trophy but know when I'm beat So I'll concede please no more un fair and untrue attacks on me being a prude or anti-free speech I'm not I never was that's why I started this discussion at least give me the last word in it or leave me out of it if you want to continue it cause I'm out Algonquin7 (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner from the Tucson shooting has his own page and did the same thing as James Holmes. A year from now people won't remember James Holmes name. This will be a source for education and not something to give James his attention that he wanted. With or without this page the media has already thrown James Holmes across the world. I also want to point out that Jared Lee Loughner has his mugshot on his wiki as well as many alive people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.144.138 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Algonquin7 needs a refresher course in English Grammar. In addition, it is called "Encyclopedia Britannica", not "Encyclopedia of Britannica". That being said, I would like to call a motion to have people make sure that proper grammar and spelling is used when either writing an article or adding anything to the talk page as part of its rules and regulations. 63.3.2.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Whaddya want? Good grammar or good taste? (Boy! That dates me, don't it??) 140.139.35.250 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The subsection on Holmes in 2012, Aurora needs to come out

The debate here seems to have blinded everybody to what is happening on that article. Reference to vicodin use (implied abuse, I guess) with barely credible sources? I suggest that subsection too be locked for the same reasons. Ajoykt (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The applicable policies

Note #16 of WP:BIO says:

It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low profile individuals

Wikipedia has a page (advisory) on who a low-profile individual is (WP:LOWPROFILE)

A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.

It seems Holmes was seeking notoriety, though I admit there is some subjective mind-reading required to parse this. Calling Holmes low-profile would be a completely new meaning of the word though.

WP:BIO1E states:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.

As to the WP:CRIME red pen quotes (leading to red pen's blanking), there is note #5 in WP:BLP:

BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.

I did modify WP:CRIME to make sure this is understood (people miss the note easily). It now says:

A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. The exceptions in WP:BIO1E apply to the above statement.

So the only "policy" question is whether Holmes is low-profile or high-profile. That seems an easy one to answer. As to the quality of the material, as long there are no BLP issues (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research), there is no reason for admins to get involved. The quality of an article is not a policy discussion and shouldn't require admin intervention. The merge discussion is ongoing and shouldn't lead to a lock. Ajoykt (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The lock was for edit warring, not because of the merge proposal. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There was exactly one person blanking the article on the presumption WP:CRIME applied and the article shouldn't exist. That person was asking for a policy decision from the admins. I don't understand how locking the article solves anything. Ajoykt (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The protection expires tomorrow. Why the heck does it need to be unlocked anyways? To be honest, I have long been of the opinion that articles like this one should be locked for no less than 6 months following the incident itself. We're not a bloody newspaper. We don't need to put every single minute by minute piece of info into the article. Of course, I'm I know I'm in the minority on this opinion, so I would never protect an article on these grounds, but, nonetheless, there is no pressing need between today and tomorrow that this be edited. However, if you disagree, ask the protecting admin on that admin's user talk page if xe will lift protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The article on the shooting itself doesn't even have semi-protection. IP edits are doing fine and expanding it well. This one was locked for edit wars over blanking.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've replied to your request at RFPP and denied unlocking the page. As other have indicated to you, including myself, the page was protected due to edit warring. The merge is a discussion that is ongoing and didn't play into the decision at all. Had a discussion not been ongoing, it would have been locked anyway. And two days is a very, very short protection. Most edit warring locks are for a week, and other admins may be compelled to extend the current lock, and would be within their rights to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 10:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

please change "ammunitions" to ammunition

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs)

Done - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Does James Holmes possess a Masters Degree?

I remember when the story first broke, CNN stated he had a Master's degree. Its also common for Universities to grant people in PhD programs Master's (even if they don't complete the program). Was wondering what the official answer was? College Watch (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you find an RS? We may need more than one, and early ones may be incorrect. If we could find one that says it was mentioned early but later proven/not proven that may be the best?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Some blogs are reporting the suspect as Jewish. He is actually a Christian, and attends a Presbyterian Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.74.86 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Holmes' family is actually Lutheran, attending Peñasquitos Lutheran Church. One or two of the church's pastor spoke to the media after the Sunday service (another source) . Psalm84 (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this that you noted the question was resolved. I just saw that the page still says Presbyterian and added an edit request. It says it in the Background section. Psalm84 (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to Christian for now. Are the best RS Lutheran? if so I can change to that and seek consensus if it is reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend putting Christian and then in the footnote identify that both Presbyterian and Lutheran have been cited and show both references. Eventually the correct one will come out from the media as this settles down. 72Dino (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian was reverted to Presbyterian. I will not revert it. We can seek consensus in this section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I answered this below. It's a little confusing here on this page. It seems that neighbors of the Holmes said they were Presbyterian, but after Sunday services the pastors of the Lutheran church spoke to the media. They provided a lot of information, especially the senior pastor, Rev. Borgie, and are quoted in a quite a number of articles. The pastors names also check out at the church's web site - www.plc-church.org/ Psalm84 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets move it to this section. Enter sources below to compare.

• Lutheran sources:

USA Today

Sacramento Bee

Reuters Psalm84 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Presbyterian sources:

LA Times Psalm84 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to Lutheran. 3/4 say that and the only Presbyterian source is a statement by a neighbor that says "involved in their local Presbyterian church". I aslo adjusted the format above. If it is reverted I will set it back to Christian until we reach consensus here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I added some additional information on what the Lutheran pastor said about Holmes, and that he reportedly identified himself online as an agnostic. Psalm84 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Family of James Eagan Holmes

A common question is, is James Holmes an only child?

At least he has a sister, based on this article about his watching his sister play bass in the family's Lutheran church's praise band.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0723/Colorado-shooting-suspect-James-Holmes-was-an-unusually-bad-intern

With that said, the family has asked the public to respect their privacy. MaynardClark (talk)

I do not know how to edit, so perhaps someone can help me out here.

I lived in the town where Holmes lived when he was in elementary school--Salinas, California. He attended Castroville Elementary School and Gambetta Middle School. He lived in Salinas, California 93907, in the Oak Hills subdivision The area is known as Prunedale and also called North County. He didn't move to San Diego until 12-2001. There are bits and pieces of this on various newspaper sites. The californian.com has an article by Jay Dunn "Castroville classmates stunned: As a youth James Holmes was friends with everybody.

Am I supposed to sign this? Sweetpea6053. If someone will help with this edit, please let me know and I will supply more references. There is so much incorrect information being posted, even incorrect information in major newspapers. Unfortunately, many of my friends live in Oak Hills and know/knew James and his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetpea6053 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your mention of the californian.com helped me find the article about him. It now mentions he was raised in Castroville as well as San Diego. If he actually lived in Salinas, we need another reference for that. Sorry again for the misunderstanding. 72Dino (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty to remove the address you provided. It wouldn't be used in the article since it isn't current, unlike the address for the apartment he booby-trapped, and since it is probably someone's address now it would be better to keep it off these pages. Psalm84 (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed more detail above--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No not at all, please edit as appropriate. Actually he lived in Salinas. The school he attended is about 3 miles in the town of Castroville. He was in the house in Oak Hills from around 1995 to 2001. Here are some other articles from the Monterey County area to help you with more facts.

1-KSBW (TV) by Amy Lawson: James Holmes has an uncle also named James Holmes who lives in Carmel, Ca. (about 30 minutes from Salinas) Title of article: "Batman Mass Murder suspects uncle describes nephew as "nerd".

2-KTVU (TV) Salinas, this verifies his having lived in Salinas, Title: Former Salinas Neighbors recall early memories of theater massacre suspect. ( Julie Lonero, who they interviewed is a friend of mine.)

3-KION (TV) by Jasmine Viel Holmes' Castroville Clasmates describe him as a "smart Kid"

4-Monterey County Herald by Virginia Hennessey This article give details on the grandparents of Holmes Title: James Holmes, accused Colorado Shooter is Grandson of decorated veteran has roots in Monterey County.

I am not sure if any of the above have listed Mary Jane as his sister or the exact years he resided in Salinas. I will work on the references for those tomorrow for you.

My son is a year older than James, and undoubtedly we crossed paths in such a small community. My head has been reeling as I recognize his mom's name from some encounter but cannot place the exact place.

Thank you for putting this together. It is important to learn about the background when these bizarre things happen so it can perhaps be recognized early on should some other individual go down the same path. sweetpea6053 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetpea6053 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Voice mail sounding like Batman.

His voicemail message was said to have been inspired by the distinctive, deep voice that is characteristic of Christian Bale's Batman-performance.[31]

However the article it cites says:

He called Holmes to follow up, he said, and to make sure he could attend the mandatory pre-membership orientation and safety rules training. That’s when he heard the strange message, which when Rotkovich tried to imitate it, sounded like a mix of moaning in the background and movie-character-like exaggerated squeals and laughter. “In hindsight, looking back -- and if I’d seen the movies -- maybe I’d say it was like the Joker -- I would have gotten the Joker out of it,” he said. “It was like somebody was trying to be as weird as possible,” he said.

There's nothing in the article about it sounding like Christian Bale's Batman character, but there is only speculation (just that, since the guy doesn't seem familiar with the movies) that it sounds more like the Joker. Batman isn't known for sequels of laughter. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks  Done to me. Feel free to open it again though. I will also close the main edit requst template. We should start a new section if we need more, this one looks like a mess.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to since the article is protected and no changes have been made. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

TexasAndroid was kind enough to go through and fix our requests and trimmed it from the above version.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. I only saw it in the gun club section not the Batman one.

 Not done--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed if for now. I don't know if someone else wants to work on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Suggest trimming at the end - what the courtroom was like, etc

I suggest the sentences below, at the end of the article, be trimmed, since we don't need to include every single thing Holmes did or did not do. The courtroom description isn't relevant either.

Holmes said nothing and never looked at the judge. The courtroom was completely full, and a room was open to accommodate the number of reporters from around the world that went to report on his first court appearance. Outside the courthouse, a growing number of reporters and curious onlookers gathered to have a glimpse of Holmes.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I think it needs to be more specific and/or consensus. Could someone put it in the change X to Y format and if there are no objections then open the request again by changing the yes to no above. Then admin can change it and close the request.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done in this section. There is another section that wishes to include more detail though. Should we merge these two sections or create a new one if further discussion is needed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Should the AR-15 be corrected?

The rifle he used was a Smith & Wesson M&P15, which is a variant of the actual AR-15. Since the M&P15 has it's own page on Wikipedia, I think it should be corrected because in the article it states it's an AR-15. As a gun enthusiast myself it sort of scraped me eye to see that.

Give me your thoughts guys. Hpski (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

AR-15 is the entire class of weapon. Parts are generally interchangable across makers etc. Its been "kleenexed" and "xeroxed" or "jacuzzied". I don't think we need to get down to the brand name. ar-15 is accurate. When people go to a gun shop and say "I want to buy an ar-15", the response is "ok, we have these 5 different models from these 4 different makers" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The AR-15 is more of platform because of the different makes and models(as is the M16, such as the M16A3, A4 and so on), but that's what I thought of too. It's the same story with the M1911's and numerous other weapons. Hpski (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't all of this information be included? Mfhiller (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Why? Its not an article about guns. He had an ar-15 type weapon, thats all that is really relevant as far as the article needs. Knowing more about ar15 part interchangability, and what particular model he had doesn't add anything the reader really needs to know, unless some particular significance of the brand can be established (hypothetically he picked that particular model because of use in a movie or something, which at this point we have no evidence for) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right - this is not an article about guns. However, media have widely misreported that the ar15 is an assault rifle and some clarification would therefore seem to be necessary. The article on 2012 Aurora shooting, for example, is brief but clear about the ar15. Mfhiller (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Assualt rifle is a simple confusion with the likely correct "Assault Weapon" (unless one wishes to argue it would have been an approved "post-ban" weapon.) Further, the main thing that makes any random "Assault weapon" an "assault rifle" is selective fire - and the average reader is not likely to know that piece of information to begin with. Certainly we could specify semi-automatic to be clear and accurate, but telling them it is an M&P does not help in that regard unless they go read that article. While the media certainly should be criticized for their ineptness and inaccuracy, as long as we are accurate, we do not need to educate everyone about the nuances in these articles. We link to the ar-15 article etc where massive amounts of detail on these topisc is available if readers wish to puruse them.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as the relevant links are in place. Mfhiller (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then why is it "M&P15" in the 2012 Aurora shooting article? Either change it to M&P15 in this article or change it to AR-15 in the other article, the fact that "an average reader doesn't know it" is not relevant, the stated fact is wrong. The only change you have to make is delete "AR-" and add "M&P". There's massive amounts of info eqúally in the M&P15 article about the rifle.Hpski (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the WP policy? Does it say we should be as specific as possible with it? We could just say assault rifle but have the wikilink go to the correct weapon if it is known and sourced?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Might as well change it to "a shotgun and a couple of Glocks" then. Anyway, seeing this won't get changed, I guess I'll drop the case. Hpski (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we include both? 'a Smith & Wesson M&P15 assault rifle' type thing?

Yes, or just "used a M&P15 assault rifle". Hpski (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done, but may need tweak.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC) I will note that the two editors above making suggestion BOTH made the same assault rifle mistake the media made. Holme's weapon was NOT an assault rifle as it did not have selective fire. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please change, suspect was not "born to" these parents, he was adopted

It is being reported by the NY Post and Businessinsider.com that Holmes was indeed adopted as a child, and raised by the San Diego parents. http://www.businessinsider.com/james-holmes-biography-2012-7 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/you_re_no_tough_guy_now_qCaDbL0bp6MXY8NiTX6x3K Please make appropriate changesSystematic1 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First sentence X to this Y?:

• Holmes was born on December 13, 1987, adopted as a child and raised by a registered nurse and a mathematician working as a senior scientist. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. This is hearsay and cannot be attributed to a reliable source. "Some cop told me and I'm telling you." WWGB (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is being reported on several more sites: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178304/James-Holmes-Gunman-used-police-evidence-bags-hand-puppets-mother-admits-feared-disturbed-years.html "According to reports, the neuroscience graduate was adopted and Mrs Holmes, 58, and husband Robert, 61, a software developer, raised him as one of their own." http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/07/batman-shooter-james-holmes-childhood-mental-issues "According to reports, the neuroscience school dropout was adopted by parents Arlene and Robert Holmes, who made a request for privacy through their lawyer on Monday." http://realeffect.blogspot.com/2012/07/james-holmes-dark-knight-rises-shooter.html "James Eagen Holmes, 24, was adopted and Mrs Holmes, 58, and husband Dr. Robert Holmes, 61, worked for San Diego-based HNC Software, Inc., a company that worked with DARPA to develop “cortronic neural networks” that enable machines to translate aural and visual stimuli and simulate human thinking., They raised him as one of their own." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systematic1 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

These reports are all very sketchy and likely don't satisfy WP:BLP. Blogs and unattributed assertions are not sufficient to include in a biography. We need a reliable source. Anyway, I'm not sure what being adopted adds to his bio, unless it is thought he inherited a "nasty gene" from his biological parents. WWGB (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't imagine a complete biography that doesn't mention an adoption. Being adopted is just as important as being born and should be mentioned in any article of someone who had been adopted. I haven't read the sources, so I'm not commenting on the reliability of the information at this time. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

While I do agree that some of the reports appear sketchy, DailyMail and RadarOnline are both fairly reliable. Primarily, I think the adoption issue should be raised since the way this article is currently written could lead people to incorrectly (assuming he was adopted) believe that the parents mentioned in this article are in fact his biological parents.Systematic1 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: change his family's religion to Lutheran

Holmes' family is actually Lutheran. I noted that this has been reported in the Religion section earlier on the page, but it must have been missed. Psalm84 (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance of his religion to his notability, unless you are suggesting it was a contributing factor? We do not "have" to fill in every infobox line. WWGB (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mention this, but the page already says that he and his family are Presbyterian. That was reported early on but it turned out to be wrong. Psalm84 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)IMO, being active in a church that presumably teaches to love your neighbor and then goes on a shooting spree is a significant aspect to the shooting and his life. And, this is first and foremost a biography and that kind of content is routine. 72Dino (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From what the Lutheran pastor Borgie said, he hadn't seen James Holmes in 6 years, so while Holmes family was still active, it seems Holmes hasn't been. And his Match.com profile says he is an agnostic. Psalm84 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds then like he was raised in the church, but then fell away as a teen. Seems appropriate for a BLP. 72Dino (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Holmes' religion

The family's religion is Lutheran according to reliable sources. The first reports came from neighbors, but these reports are from the church's pastors speaking to the media. One of them appeared on ABC News the other night. The two sources I provided above show that, and look up Holmes and Borgie on Google and you'll see other stories. Psalm84 (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From a Reuters story:

"It's absurd. It's so out of character for this young man," said Jerry Borgie, senior pastor at Penasquitos Lutheran Church in San Diego, where the Holmes family worshipped. "James had goals. He was going to succeed."

My Christian edit was reverted to Presb. I won't revert it back. There are two sections on this now. Which should we seek consensus in, or merge the two?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I did see that your edit was reverted, and I think that merging the two would be probably be the best idea. A lot less confusing. I only started this section down here because it didn't seem that the Religion section would get any more attention. Psalm84 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I sux at merging. Let's just close this one and carry on above.

Unresolved

but moving discussion to section above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

He stated on his OK Cupid profile that he's Agnostic. Thismightbezach (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I added that to the article. Psalm84 (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

If I'm not mistaken, the page was just vandalized. Psalm84 (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I see it's been fixed.

• As it looks like progress is being made, in spite of all the vandalism, I've semi-protected the page for a month, so real editors can work out the real issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Category

Can Category:American mass murderers be added, or does he have to be convicted first? NYSMtalk page 16:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

He must be convicted first. As of right now, the legal presumption is that he is not a mass murderer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

He would need to be convicted first. If there is a congruent "suspect" category that could possibly be used though Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This man

This man didnt have a page when the shooting first happened, but now he does, shouldnt he just be in there with the other page? Why so much detail on him, isnt that invasion of privacy?184.98.114.65 (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved

but being discussed in the merge sections above. Both sides have points there. You may provide input there as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Attended same high school as double murder suspect Brian Williams

I feel like this might be relevant for his page. And also if someone wants to add it to the Westview High School page. Here is the original article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-san-diego-background_n_1696081.html

"Brian Williams, who was also a Westview High School graduate, was arrested last year on charges of killing his mother and his sister." http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/New-Details-Revealed-in-Double-Homicide-125920418.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systematic1 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree since other than both of these people killing someone there appears to be little connection. I think that connection should not be added unless there is a stronger connection (the two collaberated together or Holmes was inspired by Williams).--70.49.81.140 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The nature of a "sufficient connection" is not for us to arbitrarily decide upon. We merely report on a connection (if any) having been made by others. That's our sole threshold, not some particular and rather peculiar idea of them "having to have worked together" in order to mention Williams. We only ever summarize the sum total of reliable sources; the most editorial discretion we get is to assess the available sources. --87.79.107.90 (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I would translate the above as we doesn't do WP:OR?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Source: Salk Institute 2006

The following paragraph (from Background) contains newspaper citations, but the articles rely on the authority and credibility of one interviewee (John E. Jacobson).

In the summer of 2006 he worked as an intern at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies where he was assigned to write computer code for an experiment. Holmes, who was described by his supervisor as stubborn, uncommunicative and socially inept, presented his project to the other interns at the end of the internship, but never actually completed it.

Note: Interviews of Jacobson sometimes refer to him as a "mentor", but at other times call him a "supervisor". His official title should be used. Jacobson's biography in the salk.edu archives does not mention a role he played in the summer program. The cited articles provide no information about whether Jacobson completed his graduate program and they don't state what he does presently. It would also be good to know if Jacobson was trained to be a "supervisor" / "mentor" and whether he was effective in that capacity. Was this the first time he supervised someone in this context?

This segment could be improved with citation to Salk Institute documents, newsletters, video or PR published in 2006 and 2007 about this summer program. Other interviews pertaining to that time period would also help.

I think quotations should be used when citing Jacobson's observations. Thelema418 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Should this whole incident be deleted as too trivial for the article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Should keep it. Holmes' interactions with educational institutions seems important, particularly at the higher level. Holmes was working alongside neuroscience experts, and the average person would expect those scientists to know indicators of mental illness and other problems. Also, the 2006 summer program should remain if it is unusual to the patterns of Holmes' life. This is why I didn't delete the paragraph, but it is just the statement of one source taken after the Aurora shooting; it needs to be fleshed out more. It is unusual because 1) it conflicts with reports of periods earlier and later in Holmes' life where people say he was just shy, smart, and nice (though not quoted in the Wikipedia entry, Jacobson claims Holmes' was a "mediocre student" in terms of grades) and 2) as featured in the Wikipedia article, Jacobson calls Holmes "socially inept", however reports show that before the program Holmes was involved with after-school activities and church functions; Holmes was also working as a camp counselor with no problems. At the same time, it is unclear if Jacobson interviews are unusually harsh.

More and more I do think that it needs to be made clear that Jacobson described Holmes as "stubborn, uncommunicative and socially inept" in interviews after the shooting. The way it is written it sounds like Jacobson may have done this before the shooting. That really changes the reading of the history! Thelema418 (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of the above are "indicators of mental illness". They are signs of a higher than average intellect is all. They fit Freud, Einstein and few others as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you must misunderstand. I did not provide any indicators of mental illness and I do not mean to imply anything is an indicator of mental illness (or anything else). What are you presuming is an indicator from what I wrote? Thelema418 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think I did. That may be a good reason to leave it out of the article as readers may misunderstand as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a reference to Holmes being there needs to be stated. But I am on the fence about the characterizations of the work he did, esp. if they are nothing more than slander or hearsay. Also note, David Eagleman recently made comments about John Holmes' 2006 internship at the Salk Institute. These are highly questionable comments because Eagleman did not work with Holmes and from what I can tell had already left the Salk Institute. Again, it is unusual that people from Salk are giving harsh criticisms of Holmes academics, yet Holmes did graduate with Honors from UC Riverside. Maybe criticism of education needs to be a feature? See: http://www.freep.com/article/20120725/NEWS07/120725017/1361 Thelema418 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Mentor" or "Supervisor"

The only 2006 record that indicates the interviewee's title is within Holmes' summer internship presentation. Holmes' refers to the interviewee as "mentor". See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5oVUqFF_mU Thelema418 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

An appeal for genuine neutrality

As someone who lives in Colorado, and knows the family of one of the victims, let me offer my personal appeal for editors to please not use this tragedy to push an agenda here and on the main article about the shooting, whether it be gun control, religion, or conspiracy theories about "false flag" operations and accomplices. It would be terrific if these articles would consistently follow the WP guidelines, giving due weight to well-sourced information, without original research and speculation and without WP:DRAMA on the talk pages. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for how you've been affected by knowing one of the victims in this tragedy. The fact remains, though, that the article should be giving full and accurate information. On the religion subject, it isn't balanced, accurate and NPOV to say that Holmes and his family regularly attended that church. That's a misleading picture. Adding some information from the head pastor of that church gives a much more accurate picture. And when someone else mentioned on this page that Holmes was an agnostic, I found the sources for it. It isn't just his Match.com profile, but reliable sources wrote about it, including mentioning that he identified himself as an agnostic. And there is every reason to believe that it is Holmes' profile, giving the information in it, down to him living in Aurora, his pictures, that it was up before the massacre, which Match.com confirmed, and that they've removed it, which would be based on the information they have. Telling readers that Holmes' family attended a Lutheran church, but he wasn't very involved and the pastor hasn't spoken to him in six years, and that he identified himself as an agnostic on a profile is just giving readers the most accurate, reliably sourced information on the subject. Psalm84 (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

At least, please, refrain from edit warring on this issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand how you must feel right now, but there hasn't been any edit warring on my part. I haven't reverted or restored anything, but have only discussed the issue here. This issue could use other editors opinions on what would be appropriate to say about Holmes' religion, given the information we have, so I'm going to seek an RFC about it. Psalm84 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think gun control, conspiracy and accomplice theories are not in either article now and are agreed to remain out unless they become notable. Religon of the subject is mentioned, we are still sorting out the wording on that but there shouldn't be any religous controversy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with JoeSperrazza and Canoe1967. NPOV should be the rule, not turning an article on an event or person into a debate on any subject. As to the suspect's religion, perhaps editors should sandbox their entries, with sources and discuss them here before implementing changes. That said, the religious faith of the suspect seems irrelevant at this juncture, as there was no hint that religion was a motivation (else, he'd have said he was Martin Luther, rather than saying he was "The Joker"). In short, it's irrelevant.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is irrelevant. There was an early report that stated the wrong faith for the family that has been corrected. There are sources that say he claimed to be agnostic on a public social site. Readers may be curiuos about his personal faith. A simple sourced statement to this claim in his social site profile should be all that is needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder if you have researched this situation and read the comments on this topic, including in this section. No offense, but I have started to see different standards being applied here. When there was only mention in RS of Holmes being a regular church attendee, that was quickly added to the article and there were no objections to it that I see. The only source ever given for it in RS was that it was the word of a neighbor, and the neighbor didn't seem to know the Holmes that well (enough to be called friends) because he said they were Presbyterian while they're Lutheran. Yet there wasn't even a statement that the information came from a neighbor. It was a definite "Holmes and his family were regular attendees..."

When it was accepted that the Holmes are Lutheran and the neighbor-source was removed from the article, the wording "regular attendees" was still kept, although the new sources, on information from the church's pastor, only say Holmes' mother was a regular attendee and mention that Holmes did attend with his family, but didn't mingle with other teens and the pastor hasn't spoken to him in six years (although he does mention some past conversations they had, suggesting that something brought them to an end). There is no indication in the sources of how often Holmes attended or when he last did, but "regular attendees" was kept and the pastor's statements were removed.

Then there is Holmes' Match.com profile in which he says he is agnostic. Some editors object to mentioning this unless there is absolute certainty that it is Holmes' profile and that he meant what he said in it (one editor mentions a profile isn't reliable even if reported in RS since sometimes people lie on them, so although it's all right for the article to mention the profile, which it does - while being only sourced to TMZ - the information reported in RS that he says he's agnostic can't be used). All the information in the profile, including him living in Aurora, Colo., his age, height/weight, his being a student, liking soccer, etc., match, there is a photo of him with the dyed hair, the log-in timeline matches, Match.com has confirmed the account was created before the massacre and they've also removed the profile, which they wouldn't likely do if they thought from their information it was someone else's account. Despite all this, there's an objection to saying that a dating site profile matching Holmes' name and appearance (which is how the Associated Press describes it) says he's agnostic (AP). Absolute certainty is said to be required although it isn't required in many other situations on WP. The neighbor's information was used here, and articles on WP routinely use anonymous sources reported by RS.

The arguments that Holmes' religious beliefs aren't relevant or that discussing what they are is turning an article on a person into a debate about on another subject and not "NPOV" also aren't correct. Since this is a separate article on Holmes, not on the shooting, any information considered basic to biographies should be included, and religion is basic information. And religious information was already in the article. There were no objections that it isn't relevant when the article said that Holmes and his family were "regular attendees" of a Presbyterian or Lutheran church, and even when the information didn't match the sources provided and that was pointed out several times on this page. NPOV is providing the fullest and most accurate picture possible using RS, whatever the information is, and letting readers decide for themselves what it means. Discussing and even debating what's being said in RS is only for the purpose of presenting that full and accurate picture to readers. I don't mind if people read anything from my user ID, if that is part of what is happening, but it doesn't change the facts here. Whatever information about Holmes there was, if it was RS, I'd support including. Psalm84 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Match.com profile identifying Holmes as an agnostic

I just added information that on a Match.com profile believed to belong to Holmes, he identifies himself as an agnostic. I used the word "reportedly," and it was reverted for that reason, and the other editor said, because it wasn't relevant.

I think this information should be re-added, and maybe with some description like the Associated Press gave - that "A profile for a man whose name and appearance matched Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes..." But the article actually already reports this profile as belonging to Holmes later in the Background section, and all I did was add what was reported, that he said he is agnostic. Other reliable sources have reported on this, and the evidence strongly suggests that the profile belongs to Holmes.

On the relevance question, it seems that if his religious beliefs are being discussed and Holmes and his family are being identified as active Lutherans, it should also be mentioned that he has identified himself as an agnostic.

I don't think we should add anything about his religion yet until a reliable sources covers it. I would not add any information from a online profile presumed to be that of Holmes. -- Luke (Talk) 00:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The article already says that Holmes and his family as "regular attendees of a local Lutheran church" and the Match.com information was already in the article, with the source the TMZ report. There are also sources besides TMZ that have reported on this profile, including the Associated Press. Psalm84 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as we can't state as a fact that this profile is his we can't include it per BLP. There is no way around it.TMCk (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Match.com profile is already identified as Holmes' in the article, as well profiles with AdultFriendFinder.com and Monster.com:

"He left some digital footprints, like a university email address, an old Myspace photo[31], a dating profile on Match.com,[32] and a profile on Adult FriendFinder, as well as a resume at the employment website Monster.com.[33][34]"

Many reliable sources have already linked Holmes to the profile for several reasons: his name, his appearance in the profile picture (including the dyed red hair) and the fact Match.com has confirmed that the account was created before the attack. The media often seems to identify profiles of individuals not by confirmation from the companies involved but by the information in the profiles.

"A profile for a man whose name and appearance matched Holmes has been removed from a dating website. Match.com spokesman Matthew Traub on Tuesday confirmed reports on TMZ.com and elsewhere that the profile was posted before the movie theater massacre. Traub would not comment on whether Match.com believes Holmes actually posted the profile."

"The profile photo showed a man whose hair is reddish orange, similar to Holmes' hair when he appeared in court Monday."

Sources: LA Times, Associated Press. Psalm84 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Another source, an LA Times article, also mentions that the Match.com profile is for a James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado who is a student, and there is other information in the screenshot of the profile and other news report on it which match what is known about Holmes. Match.com also removed the profile, which it would not likely do if it belonged to someone else. Psalm84 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who is talking about the match.com site, it is itself not a reliable source for BLP information. It is very well known that people lie/mislead/ or pick random answers all the time on dating sites to better attract mates or just to get through the front door and look at pictures. We can mention he had such an account (although I think that is pretty useless information to include in a BLP), but using any information from that account unless it becomes in some way significant in the court case would be out of bounds. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now the article already discusses Holmes' religious beliefs. I wouldn't have added that he's identified himself as an agnostic if it didn't already do that. It says that he and his family were regular attendees of a Lutheran church, and I added comments from the senior pastor that Holmes didn't mingle with other teens and the pastor hasn't seen him in six years. That is more accurate, and adding that Holmes has identified himself as an agnostic would give a more complete picture still. If a subject is brought up, the full picture should really be given. The article shouldn't just say that he's an agnostic, though. It should say that the profile says he is. That's just giving readers reported information and letting them decide what it means. The article originally said that the Holmes were Presbyterian, and it didn't identify that the information just came from a neighbor, and it turned out to be wrong. The answers Holmes gave also seem to be true from what's known about him, like his height/weight and his interest in soccer. Psalm84 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to discern his religious beliefs in this way is original research and never acceptable in articles. At best, that which he is alleged to have written on his adult dating web page is self published; as the source is itself unreliable, it is not acceptable here. Wait for a reliable secondary source to state these points you want to make, then they can be added, if relevant. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I overlooked this post since there were posts in different spots. In reply I want to say that none of this is original research. According to WP:SPS, the Match.com profile is certainly allowable, especially since it's reported on by RS. But even the guidelines say that self-published sources, when their only about the person himself, are allowable. See "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves." Psalm84 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Attending a church service is an objective fact which is inherently verifiable, and while implying something about a person's belief, is not equivilent to saying that "their religion is X". To the contrary, many people hav eattended services of religions they do not personally believe in as part of social obligations, curiosity, etc. However, saying "X person is an Y-religion" is of an entirely different nature, and must be sourced much more rigorously. See WP:BLPCAT Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed your addition regarding the Sr. Pastor's comments as WP:UNDUE. Please do not re-add without gaining WP:CONSENSUS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused how to post this since there was an edit conflict, so I'll just post what I've written here. This page isn't a page about the shooting, but about Holmes himself. In that case, religion is relevant. It is frequently mentioned in biographies for no other reason than it's a fact about someone's life. The article also already brings up the topic of his religion. It said this until just recently:

"He and his family were regular attendees of a local Lutheran church, although its head pastor says Holmes didn't mingle with other parishioner his own age and that he hasn't spoken to him in six years."

Now it says this:

"He and his family were regular attendees of a local Lutheran church."

(An editor has removed the comments from the pastor as "[WP:UNDUE}" which seems unwarranted. It seems false and misleading to say Holmes and his family were regular church attendees when the pastor hasn't spoken to Holmes in six years (which very strongly suggests he hasn't seen him in six years either). The sentence, "He and his family were regular attendees of a local Lutheran church," used to say "Presbyterian," but that was inaccurate and the source was removed. One of the sources now says that Holmes' mother attends the church regularly - not Holmes or the whole family. The other source mentions that Holmes attended the church but doesn't say when, and also says it isn't known if Holmes has had much contact with his family in the last year.)

This information about the Match.com profile also isn't original research. It has been reported in reliable sources, including the Associated Press, that he identified himself as an agnostic in the profile. Psalm84 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The religious affiliation information has been removed by another editor as unsourced. Please await WP:CONSENSUS before re-adding any of this materiel, and kindly see my note in the new section, below. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments - Information on Holmes' religion in the article

There is conflict now over what should be said about Holmes' religious beliefs in the article. The different possible versions:

1. "He and his family were regular attendees of a local Lutheran church." (current version).

The first version in the article has been changed to this:

"He attended a local Lutheran church with his family, according to the church's pastor."

The sources used in the article didn't support the sentence as it was, as explained below. Psalm84 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The version that was in the article didn't report what the cited sources say. One says Holmes' mother is a regular attendee at the church, and the other is vague. It said:

"For most of his 24 years, James Holmes seemed to be doing everything right...He worked for a summer as a counselor at a camp for needy kids...He attended church with his family in their quiet, upper-middle-class San Diego neighborhood, listening to his sister play bass in the worship band."

The original source was removed from the article because it quoted a neighbor who said the Holmes "regularly attended a local Presbyterian church," which was wrong. Saying that Holmes attended with his family doesn't really explain how often he attended or when he last did. Psalm84 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

2. "He and his family were regular attendees of a local Lutheran church, "He attended a local Lutheran church with his family, according to the church's pastor. The pastor says Holmes didn't mingle with other parishioner his own age and that he hasn't spoken to him in six years." (It was reliably sourced from two articles. The pastor spoke to the media and was quoted. Edit was reverted.)

3. 1 and 2 but also adds that on a dating site profile that matches Holmes' personal information and his appearance (which is how the Associated Press describes the profile, as matching both), Holmes identified himself as an agnostic. (The profile was also confirmed to be up before the shooting and was removed by Match.com. It is also already mentioned in the article as belonging to Holmes. The Associated Press and L.A. Times mention that Holmes identified himself as an agnostic.

The question is what should the article include. Psalm84 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

4."He and his family were regular attendees of a local Lutheran church but in his Match.com profile he stated that he was agnostic." Feel free to edit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's another possibility. If there's any others, too, they can be added here. Psalm84 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• BLP issues are not up for being over-rulled by consensus. We can debate what the apropriate level of inclusion is, only for information which has been reliably sourced. There are strong policy based objections to some of these inclusions, and if you want to include them over these objectsions, you would need to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and or the BLP noticeboard to get a broader concensus on if these inclusions are or are not in compliance with policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you give some specifics on the BLP issues you see in these possibilities? Those BLP issues are a part of this discussion and it's expected that editors will look at them. The information and where it's from are on this page. Psalm84 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Version 2 seems to be abutting independent facts through the conjunction "although" as if to hint at a conclusion. At the very least, this version should be reworded and split into two or more sentences. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the first part of the sentence actually isn't accurate and is possibly untrue. The sentence used to say that "Holmes and his family were regular attendees of their local Presbyterian church." The only source ever given for that was a neighbor of the Holmes, and it isn't correct. They're Lutheran. And when the switch was made to Lutheran, the source was removed from the article but "Holmes and his family" and "regular attendees" was kept. The two present sources say Holmes' mother was a regular attendee in one and that Holmes attended church with his family and watched his sister perform with the praise band in the other. They don't mention how often Holmes attended. Both of them get their information from the church pastor. One source reports that the pastor said he hasn't spoken to Holmes in six years, which suggests that Holmes either stopped attending or attended infrequently, especially since the pastor has also said that he did at times talk to Holmes, but he always initiated the conversations. The sentence should probably be reworded to take our "regular" to begin with. Psalm84 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

5."His family were attendees of a local Lutheran church but other sources state that he claimed to be agnostic."--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I favor this version because it gives prominence to what is best-sourced but acknowledges the fact is contested. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 14:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Explanation for his motives in the attack

This is not intended to be contentious, but it is admittedly not from a well-known source: Another Perspective on the Batman Theater Shooting

Quoting from a different post on that site, "...if people can be trusted when they say that they think unemployment is the most important issue in the United States, and it has been shown that unemployment is associated with a substantially higher suicide risk, someone might logically conclude that people who oppose available ways to create jobs literally want unemployed people to kill themselves and acting in a way that causes people to support job creation could save lives even if some are lost in the process. If people don't want this to happen, all they would have to do is openly come out in opposition to the idea that people should be trusted or that they, personally, can be trusted. In this way, it is not realistic to expect everyone to 'secretly' agree that people cannot be trusted." 66.212.64.252 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand all the points being made, but discussions over the shooter's possible motives usually don't end up in Wikipedia. The only time they might be used if it's from someone official (like a psychologist testifying in court) or someone high-profile. Right now, with Holmes only accused and so many facts unknown, opinions even from known experts probably won't be included. Psalm84 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. IShadowed (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

Further information: Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § James Eagan Holmes‎, Project:Biographies of living persons § Subjects notable only for one event, Project:Notability (people) § People notable for only one event, Talk:2012 Aurora shooting § Creating a page for James Holmes, and Talk:2012 Aurora shooting § James Eagan Holmes article Why does this need a separate article from the massacre article? FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge per WP:ONEEVENT.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge per WP:ONEEVENT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Support - merge per WP:ONEEVENT.--Louiedog (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC) strong support merge Very little bio information about him is known at this point. WP:BLP1E Gaijin42 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose merge. The relevant guideline here is WP:BLP1E. The article satisfies the criterion "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". Besides, mass murderers inevitably end up with their own article. Just swallow it now and save everyone a waste of time with a merge now and then a breakout later. WWGB (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC) WP:CRYSTAL since this person is not convicted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Weak oppose - while it could be argued that the only reason this alleged psycho is notable now is because of this one act (or one set of acts on July 19-20), and he's simply part of the subject of the shooting, and not notable otherwise, let's face it...every mass murderer gets his own article anyway at some point, so why not now? At this point it could go either way, but if one is honest, it won't be an "either way it can go" type situation forever. The Columbine murderers have their own separate stand-alone articles. This loser Holmes is really no different, and in a way more notable. Since he single-handedly perpetrated chaos on a scale surpassing anything else (At least 70 casualties in one day, not to mention that booby trap nightmare at his apartment.) So no merging. He seems to be unfortunately stand-alone enough. And if not now, very soon will be anyway. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose per WWGB; this article is inevitable. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose. If the content is left at the shooting article, then soon enough it will overload that article and be forked out, if only so that that article is not all about him. As WWGB and Rabbit have said above, this seems to be inevitable. I agree that it's a waste to delete it now, if it is just going to need to be recreated in the near future anyway. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose He's a high profile killer like Ted Bundy. Theres too many details on the shooting and the article will be overloaded. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose Holmes has already sparked a large amount of interest in him as a person, and has also perpetrated a highly noted event. As most have noted above, he will probably end up with his own page in the future, regardless of this merge decision. Maslogical (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge: Br'er Rabbit and others in this section should be ashamed of themselves for sacrificing core editing principles in the name of convenience. What's worse is that these editors have not only resigned themselves to believing that this article will exist, they're actively standing in the way of a merge by opposing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Someone needs to read Wikipedia:Etiquette. WWGB (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC) It's amusing that you can't simply say that you found my comment to be impolite, but instead choose to cite a specific Wikipedia guideline. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Actually someone needs to read Ryan's good comment right below, to show clearly that "core editing principles" in fact are NOT being "sacrificed" for "convenience". It's stated that high profile individuals (Holmes definitely is) in a high profile case (this shooting in Colorado definitely is) would meet the WP policy and principles for a stand-alone person, subject, and article. So to put it frankly, MZMcBride is wrong, and ought to be ashamed of himself for being rude A), and B) not understanding or knowing some actual WP editing principles. The Columbine shooters have their own articles. Should those articles be "merged" into the Columbine shooting article? Can someone say "snowball"? High-profile persons with their high-profile actions. It's that simple. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I read his comment. Have you read the article? Can you explain which part of the sum of human knowledge would be lost by cutting the absolute cruft that's currently trying to sustain this biography? For what it's worth, I don't take issue with people who disagree with me regarding whether to keep this article. I have more stringent standards than others and I've lost many battles similar to this before. I do take issue with people opposing a merge simply because they view the result as inevitable, though. This kind of makeshift pseudo-self-fulfilling prophecy bullshit really ought not be allowed in discussions here. People should comment and vote based on what they actually feel should happen to the article. This is about sacrificing personal principles for the purpose of making shoddy predictions about what might happen to the article. No thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) no worries, we know each other ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose BLP1E specifically excludes low-profile individuals who receive significant coverage for one event from having an article. Then we must decide if he is a high- or low-profile individual. In this case, I am looking at Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual#Behavior pattern and activity level. The description of a low-profile individual refers to those who are "notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events". In this case, Holmes is notable for a major role in a major event, which would make him a high-profile individual. This causes him to be excluded from BLP1E in the same matter as McVeigh and Loughner. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose I can only repeat that all the relevant arguments in this regard have been exchanged in the not so distant past here, here, here and here. As you can see, the result was always to keep the article. I really wonder how often consensus has to be reached in this matter, before it is finally accepted. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)) Oppose add to the above, as noted, these guys, who also have their own article. Time to quit arguing about this. Montanabw(talk) 15:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose Cho has his own article, Eric and Dylan have their own article, James Holmes will too have his own article. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose. The guideline strictly says that as more info comes up, a separate right will be appropriate. Let's just save ourselves the hassle in the future. I'm sure Holmes' article will be ready in the near future (although I think it's perfectly fine right now). Besides, merging it may mean removing important details of Holmes' involvement and overall personality. ComputerJA (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Although I'm tempted to support, I must concede to Ryan Vesey's reasoning. That said, I wish to note strong concerns that this article MUST remain in compliance with WP:BLPCRIME at all times. Until such time as he pleads guilty or is convicted, we must not refer to him as guilty. Period. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I was tempted to support but had to concede to my own reasoning as well. In fact, I argued for deletion of another page on Holmes. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose. The contents have to comply with WP:BLP whether they are in a separate article or in a subsection. A separate article for Holmes will have to be created anyway--he is a major actor in a major event (one-time-event notability): see the WP:BLP1E exception. As things stand, there is enough content here for a start-level article, and clearly we will have more down the road. If we merge, we will end up sacrificing some relevant information and just overload the other article. The argument notoriety doesn't deserve coverage in an encyclopedia doesn't work (for one thing that isn't WP policy, for another we could very well learn from these incidents and people perhaps what not to be). Ajoykt (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Ryan Vesey, but other opposes need to steer clear of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Giants27(T|C) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose: Someone this newsworthy will have a biographical article. Not sure why there's even an argument. (...even after reading the foregoing.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Look at articles Bruno Richard Hauptmann and the Lindbergh kidnapping. Would Hauptmann have his own article if he hadn't perpetrated the kidnapping? No. Some Wikipedia readers are interested in the criminal, some in the crime. The respective articles are very different. Valerius Tygart (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Support Merge Why does he need a separate article for being a major player? Other instances, ie Raul Moat, just give information on the article regarding the crime 92.14.250.79 (talk) 2012-07-23 16:45:39 Oppose merge. They need separate articles. An article on the perpetrator provides readers with significant insight and more information. The information from the Aurora article should only concentrate on the event. Cho-Seung Hui (Virginia Tech Massacre perpetrator) and Jared Loughner (Gabby Giffords shooter) both have their own pages. I think that makes ore sense.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRuner24 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose: While I get that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", even a two year old can see this will have a lasting impact, be a subject of study for various fields of criminology and psychology, and really be not much less impactful than Jared Lee Loughner, Eric Harris, and even older examples like Charles Whitman. Sarysa (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose James Eagan Holmes passes the WP:GNG which pretty much has a say over the others while WP:BLP1E is more of a guideline. Under BLP1E it says "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." The suspect here is not a low profile individual and has been in a ton of reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: Ah, WP:GNG is a guideline. It says so in its name. WP:BLP1E is part of WP:BLP, which is a policy. That said, your argument based on what WP:BLP1E says is a good one. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.231.19 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose. The columbine shooters have their own article. Why not Holmes?--Mark0528 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose - I'm generally not a big fan of these kinds of articles, but as others have correctly pointed out, the crime is so high-profile that having a separate bio article is correct and inevitable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose. There's a lot of precedent for having separate articles, and practically speaking the event article is going to get overloaded. Mystere (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose, for the time being. I understand the arguments on both sides, but feel that Holmes satisfies the criterion for his own article. However, I also expect more information to come out that, to reference an good comment from earlier, would allow us a richer perspective on his motives in this one event. If said information never arrives, and this article remains just a general bio with a brief synopsis of the shooting, at that point I would vote to merge. - Drlight11 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Many other shooters have their own articles, so how come this one shouldn't? Also, what if a reader wanted to look up more information about the background of the shooter? In that situation, a separate article, such as this one, could turn out to be really quite useful. SuperHero2111 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge -- Holmes only claim to fame or rather infamy is this event. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC) If this is the only argument the merge supporters have (and I haven't seen any other) there is no case at all here. WP:BIO1E explicitly says: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Both conditions are obviously met here. In general, WP:MERGE lists 4 criteria for a merge--duplication, overlap, text (insufficient), and context--of which only text seems to apply here. But to quote: "Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, . . ." This also doesn't hold here. Ajoykt (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Wikipedians have incredible difficulty with editorial judgment. There's enough information to write a biography about any individual. The question is whether a separate article makes sense here. The answer is no. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC) On what basis? Insufficient text? Ajoykt (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC) On the basis of proportionate coverage. The event (the shooting) is certainly notable. Inside the event's article, you'd obviously discuss the suspect and provide a few paragraphs' worth of background about him. However, as a standalone biography, there's nothing of substance beyond this individual's involvement in this shooting. Can you write a full biography (i.e., is it possible to)? Yes, of course you can, that was my point. You can write a full biography about anyone. Does that mean that including such a biography here is appropriate? No. This individual is notable for one particular event. I don't see what value it provides to anyone to create and maintain a biography on the individual when there's an article on the reason anyone is discussing him. Do we really care that "in the summer of 2008, Holmes worked as a counselor at a residential summer camp in Glendale, California, that catered to needy children aged 7–14." Of course not. However, Wikipedians have difficulty with editorial judgment, as I said. The ability to provide in-depth coverage about a subject very often overshadows the more important question of whether a subject needs such in-depth coverage. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC) The "of course not" is your opinion; clearly others think differently. It isn't a question of what we care about. The idea of an encyclopedia is to assemble relevant facts others can use for their purposes. Obviously the issue of articles on a mass shooter has been discussed before on WP, and the WP:BIO1E "separate article is generally appropriate" policy guideline is the consensus answer from those discussions. If you oppose that you should bring up your objections on the policy talk pages first. But as long as that is the policy, a separate article is appropriate, and even recommended. Ajoykt (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC) What a particular Wikipedia guideline or policy says isn't directly relevant. Both you and I are capable of assessing this article as it is and as it relates to the underlying notable event. I've commented that I don't support a separate article and I've laid out my reasoning why. You and others are hell-bent on having a separate biography. Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Support If he's presumed innocent - and he is - then why is he notable?198.161.2.241 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Merge per WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Subject unmistakeably satisfies GNG, of that there is no doubt. In addition, BLP1E, which has been cited by almost all the editors of the opposite opinion, clearly points to the inclusion of a separate article for this subject. The subject is clearly high profile, which requires that we interpret BLP1E in support of a separate article. WP:BIO1E clearly points in to maintaining the separate article for the same reason as BLP1E. Safiel (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Sorry, but since when is being accused of a notable crime "playing a significant role"? This is ridiculous. --IShadowed 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC) As the subject is identified is the sole perpetrator of the event, he played an extremely "significant role" in the event.--Oakshade (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge. Individual not infamous outside of this one event. No reason for a separate article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge. He has done nothing significant outside of this event and does not deserve his own page. I say delete his page altogether until he is convicted and we can add him to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentond (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose High profile historically important, no less than the Unibomber and other high profile killers. This singular event is the worst mass shooting in American history. 9/11 was also a singular event yet every single hijacker has his own wikip article. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC) It's certainly one of the worst but calling it the worst is questionable. There are four mass shootings in the U.S. listed at List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas with a higher death toll, which does not include school or workplace shootings. My point is this: our perceptions of the historical significance of this event may be distorted by recentism. 72.195.132.12 (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary Section Break 1 Strongest Support Possible for Merge per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:CRIME. Yes, the individual definitely passes the notability criteria and should therefore be included on Wikipedia, but the question here is where. WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT explicitly cover this (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person). As the individual in question is only notable for the 2012 Aurora shooting, any information on him should be added to that article. A great example of a similar criminal case is with Casey Anthony, the accused perpetrator and mother of murder victim Caylee Anthony (also note that Mr. Holmes is currently only accused, not convicted). Casey's background information/media criticism/etc is all included in Death of Caylee Anthony, not in a separate article on Casey herself (one additional article exists on the timeline of the court proceedings). This needs to be the case for James Eagan Holmes as well. Issues with the oppose rationales here; From WP:BLP1E arguments; "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Sorry, but since when is being accused of a notable crime "playing a significant role"? This is ridiculous. Mr. Holmes is not in the same boat as individuals such as Ted Bundy, who was involved in and convicted of multiple cases of rape and murder (which is why Bundy qualifies for a standalone article, in addition to coverage from court proceedings). Mr. Holmes is only notable for one incident of crime, regardless of the number of victims. See also WP:BALL. It's irrelevant whether or not an article may or may not exist in the future--until the individual qualifies for a standalone article, they should not have one. That simple. "The Aurora shooting article will be too long if we include him in it" is just plain ridiculous and not a valid oppose rationale at all. I absolutely have to echo MZMcBride on this one--I really hope the deciding admin weighs the arguments against each other rather than just the number of votes in support or against because otherwise, jeez, this would be the day someone uses WP:CRYSTAL as a valid oppose rationale... shudder. --IShadowed 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Expanding on my earlier argument, the event and the person's role in it are meant to be considered in BLP1E. While the Casey Anthony case received wide coverage, it's significance was far less than this event is. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC) On the contrary, he and Ms. Anthony are currently in the same role -- accused. --IShadowed 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC) To expand on Ryan's post, specifically WP:BIO1E within WP:BLP1E. No, what Casey Anthony was charged with was a not a notably notorious crime. And, as somebody else mentioned, analogies aren't true arguments. Ajoykt (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I already made an argument based on the relevant guidelines (if you can read the first few sentences of my rationale...) The analogy is just icing. --IShadowed 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC) The problem with WP:CRIME in your stsement is that it does not apply "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" This being called "The largest mass shooting in US History" [1] screams noteworthy to me when it comes to James Eagan Holmes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) That statement only currently speaks to the notability of the incident, not of the individual in question. He is merely the accused perpetrator at this time. --IShadowed 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Super-Powerful Omega Blast Kryptonite-Powered Falcon-Punch Oppose Level 9000! I am always amused by this ongoing behavior by editors where they feel they need to add multiple superlatives to their vote. It doesn't make it any more powerful than a simple Support or Oppose. WCityMike (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Support - He is notable enough for a large section in the main article but a standalone article is not needed. United States Man (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose - I agree that "this article is inevitable." ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Please see WP:BALL. It's irrelevant whether or not an article may exist in the future. Until the individual qualifies for a standalone article, they should not have one. That simple. --IShadowed 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose. If there is enough coverage from external sources it makes sense to keep both articles, most likely other editors will wind up making it anyway. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose WP:BLP1E clearly indicates that someone notable for certain high-profile events is sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. The comparison offered there is an assassin of a major political figure, but obviously expands to include spree shooters who get considerable national media attention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Strong Support This article is nothing but a content fork about the shooting. Further, he is not notable outside of that event and so any biographical content we may introduce in the future in this article that does not illuminate the shooting is unencyclopedic. causa sui (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Weak support for merge - If we redirect Holmes' article to that of the event, the history of Holmes' article will be kept. We can put ALL of the information from Holmes' article (or that to which the populous concedes) into that of the event. If the article becomes too large, then we can talk about splitting it off. I'd never heard of Holmes until today, and I'm sure many others have not heard of him either. Therefore, I must agree that he is not notable outside of this ONE event. Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose Like other spree killers, Holmes is notable. More and more information is coming out on him. Appropriate to keep a separate article for him. ScienceApe (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support Merge, per WP:ONEEVENT. This is the one-time event of a crazy person, whomever the person turns out to be, and whether or not the current suspect is that person. Wikipedia should not make each crazed-spree killer into a "hero" with his/her own Wikipedia page, at least not if Wikipedia does not want to be a part of the incentive for other would-be-spree-killers to kill so that they, too, can have their own Wikipedia page to gain the attention and recognition that their otherwise sorry lives would never have. N2e (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) speedy redirect and lock there is no discussion." textbook example of WP:BLP1e // WP:PERP. - why is there even any question? -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) If you'd actually read WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP you'd realize that this is not a "textbook example" for anything. There is quite some room for interpretation in these guidelines, and as you can see in the discussion above, a lot of people have a different opinion than you in this case. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) For those to lazy to click to read, "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For perpetrators: 1) The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC) in addition most of the keep articles are based solely on WP:WAX and even then their examples are of people who are DEAD and not subject to BLP or have been convicted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC) No, it's a matter of consistency, and if you read WP:WAX carefully and in its entirety, it says that an argument should not be dismissed simply because it's a comparison EITHER. It says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Also, again, your full quote above about notability and crimes was the words "not normally". That's not a hard fast rule against making a separate article. Again, it's this simple: 1) is the case itself notable, and 2) is the ROLE by the suspect or perp in the case minor or major, small or notable? If both things are notable, the suspect or perp gets a stand-alone article. And yes, "X"...Klebold has his own article. Do you suggest merging Dylan Klebold with the Columbine shooting article? If not, why not? As I said, it's a matter of logical consistency. And it IS a valid argument. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Klebold is very clearly not subject to the LIVING PERSONS policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC) But Jared Lee Loughner is, as are Nidal Malik Hasan, Robert Bales and Anders Behring Breivik. None of them is convicted yet, nonetheless community consesus in each of these cases was, after similarly heated debates, to keep the articles. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) Also, to add to that, do you think that if Klebold were alive today, if he never killed himself that day, but stayed alive, and was arrested, tried, convicted, and put away, etc, that (given what he and his partner did in Columbine) he would not have a stand-alone article? Jots and graphs (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) As your highlighting shows the guidline clearly says 'should not', and not 'must not', so exceptions can be made and have been made frequently in similar cases. And what you conveniently ignore is that we should consider not to create an article about an alleged perpetrator. As far as I can see, the consideration is still ongoing, and no decision has been reached yet.(Lord Gøn (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) Support merge per WP:BLP1E but I'd prefer to see as much as possible merged. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose merge Yuri Gagrin is famous for only one event, too. Holmes shot more people than anyone else in a mass US shooting, according to the article, so his notability is secured. — O'Dea (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge - this person will likely eventually have an article, but the time to build a neutral article about this subject will be after the dust settles and extensive information about the subject is available. As a deeply emotional current event, content should be managed centrally until it is less active. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge. Even though the subject will quite probably merit an article soon (possibly before this discussion is concluded), as a matter of principle and per WP:CRIME and WP:CFORK, we should be waiting until there is enough solid and reliable information to make the article worthwhile. The harm may be theoretical in this case, but being over-eager to create an article about the latest celebrity killer can give rise to severe breaches of WP:BLP, as happened with Murder of Joanna Yeates. We should really have a rule that reverses the assumption in these cases, so that bio articles for perpetrators are squashed until there is a positive consensus to create them. Formerip (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Now that the article is locked, it is no longer possible to add "enough solid and reliable information". WWGB (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC) It is also not possible because enough such information does not yet exist. Formerip (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge. The event for which the subject is known does not currently meet the exception of WP:PERP, "it is a well-documented historic event". That it is expected to do so in the future is an issue of WP:CRYSTAL, and I would respectfully suggest that those !votes referring to this likely future state be discounted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Merge The standard for events like this should be articles like Cumbria shootings, where there is no separate article on the shooter, despite massive media coverage and the fact that the event was probably even more notable, as the first (and to date only) mass shooting in the UK after the restrictive gun laws were introduced. Black Kite (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Why should "Cumbria" be the standard? Why not Columbine? No, you're wrong, Columbine should be more of the standard since that happened in the U.S., and so did this. Cumbria is in Europe. So why should THAT be the template or model? Simply because you say so and want it to be that way? I guess you'd be ok with merging the Dylan Klebold article into the Columbine shootings article, if that's the case. Jots and graphs (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I agree if the suspect had died in the firefight or killed himself but cases like James Eagan Holmes, and Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Mark David Chapman involve a captured alive status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean there - why would they be more notable purely because they're still alive? Of course, that means there'll be a trial, but details of that should go in the main article anyway. Black Kite (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC) What im saying is what is the diffrence between this article and the one for Jared Lee Loughner for example (As it was a fairly recent case) and what is going to prevent this from happening again? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Really? "Columbine should be more of the standard since that happened in the U.S., and so did this."? It may surprise you to know that 96% of the world's population doesn't live in America. But hey, it's already well-known that one Brit = ten frogs = a hundred wogs, and no-one would've given a fuck about Madeleine McCann if she was a Pakistani teenager. Sceptre (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support WP:ONEEVENT. The shooting is the only thing that he is notable for. Maddie talk 02:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose merge Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Jared Lee Loughner were only involved in one event as well. Eventually there will be a trial and other facts which'll need to be consolidated into this article anyway.Robert Beck (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge: IShadowed hit the nail on the head that, despite the existence on biographies on individuals such as Loughner, this still violates 1E. The problem with articles about crime perpetrators, especially for crimes committed after the inception of Wikipedia, is that we can too easily collate news sources on one event and the reactions thereof ("He was such a quiet boy", the elderly Smith couple said, "never got into any trouble"), thus leading to an article including invasive biographical filler and duplication of much of the content in the article about the event. In an essence, that's why BLP1E exists in a first place. A lot of the article about Loughner, for example, could be condensed without a meaningful loss of information into a section of no more than five paragraphs in the article about the Tuscon shooting. Holmes has not reached the levels of Chapman or Oswald, and it's gazing into a crystal ball to suggest that he will. And besides, there's already a place for collating news coverage and covering current events; it's called Wikinews. I also sense some American systemic bias here; there are, by virtue of geographical size and population placement, a lot more news sources in America than in other countries, which makes these stories seem more covered than they are. We don't have articles about Derrick Bird or Raoul Moat, even though the gun crimes they perpetrated dominated the news cycles as much (and may be even more notable than this'll turn out to be). Neither, indeed, to we have an article on Gillian Duffy, but we have one on Thomas Muthee, despite Duffy having more of an influence on a major election campaign than Muthee had on the 2008 election. It's seriously something we need to discuss on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Systemic bias is not a reason not to keep the article. That it runs rampant on Wikipedia is true, but unavoidable. You could as well say, there is a Western bias, or massive recentism, because most mass shootings occurring in third world countries, or 40 years ago don't even end up with an article about the event. But that does not mean there shouldn't be articles about them. It's just that too few people actually care, and even for those who do, the lack of sources makes working on it difficult. Just imagine how this article would look like, if it had happened in the USA. In all probability more like this one. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) Oppose merge per WP:ONEEVENT. Firstly, WP:ONEEVENT does not and has never banned articles about people for being notable for one event. It is simply a guideline on how to deal with individuals notable for one event. It states very clearly "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I will also add Oppose merge per WP:BLP1E which states clearly that it is meant for "low profile individuals." This person, whether anyone likes it or not, is in no manner "low profile. --Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Merge I agree with above arguments against the merge, nothing to add more, than my opposition. NECRATSpeak to me 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose There is a lot of good information at Timothy Mcveigh and Anders Behring Breivik, information that couldn't be merged into the articles about their respective atrocities. It's entirely possible for the same to happen here. Euchrid (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose This guy is the suspect in the deadliest mass murder in US history? Of course he is going to have his own page. It is hilarious that there is a discussion about this. If this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I don't know what does... Ajcadoo (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC) No one said he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. We've said he only meets the notability guidelines for his role in one event--therefore should be included on that event's page, not a standalone article. IShadowed (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose Knowledge is more important than sensitivity. Other shooters also have profiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay Juicer (talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support While many of those opposing this merge make arguements that other spree killers have their own articles its important to note that Holmes has not been convicted and so must be considered a suspected spree killer. As per WP:CRIME a living person suspected of a crime should be presumed innocent prior to a conviction and we should not create an article about him prior to then. 70.113.92.82 (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The existence of an article has no bearing on presumption of innocence; this is an article about a murder suspect. Other articles on suspected mass murderers who have not been convicted such as Jared Lee Loughner and Anders Behring Breivik clearly support the inclusion of this article. —Lowellian (reply) 14:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose The criminal and crime are inherently different subjects, and which information goes where is easily distinguishable. To merge the article will result in the butchering of pertinent information. It is standard practice in cases like this to keep separate articles. Everything in its place. --CrunchySkies (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose simply through his actions he became a person of biographical interest and consequently deserves to have a biographical entry. Entries such as this one provide fuel for the questions that should be being asked, and it's fairly obvious that those who are opposing this article are hoping he'll be put away fast and don't want questions being asked that could delay that process. Wikipedia needs to continue to be a neutral and unbiased source of information and not be swayed by the emotional output of those who feel it necessary to crusade on behalf of the people affected even though in most cases it is nothing whatever to do with them. Nevart (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I haven't seen a single rationale here revolve around emotional support for victims. If you think all the guidelines being referenced here are emotional pleas, I suggest you go back and read carefully. IShadowed (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Correction: I now see one, and that obviously isn't a sufficient support rationale. However, there are tons of totally valid supports here, the vast majority of which are in no way emotionally motivated. IShadowed (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary Section Break 2 Support. We already have guidelines for that. WP:BLP1E. The person is only know from one event covered in detail by an article. Trying to start a biography of this person right now, before the end of the trial will only result in pport quality article and in repeats of the main article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support - The basis of this article is that this person is notable with an array of information available. I cannot say I see there as being a considerable quantity of information available, as details about this individual and his back story having been fleshed out. I do believe there could eventually be a substantial amount of information for an individual article, just not as of yet. DarthBotto talk•cont 11:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support Per WP: ONEVENT. Holmes is infamous and has no claims of notability other than this event. Electric Catfish 13:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC) You guys really need to read the comments for keeping the articles separate. Your argument of "he's only known for this one event" is old and tired, and has already been thoroughly addressed and refuted, as not a valid argument. Please read the comments addressing that stuff already. Thank you. Jots and graphs (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC) So what's the second event he's known for? And I've just run a character and word count on the biographical details, it runs to 4KB/658 words. If this was in the article about the event, no-one would seriously suggest splitting it into its own article. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I didn't say that there was a "second" event. But the point is that there are two reasons he's stand-alone...1) the case itself is notable...and 2) his ROLE in the case was not minor but of course major, and notable. That's it. Would you suggest merging Dylan Klebold with the Columbine shooting article? Simply because Klebold was only known for that one event? Jots and graphs (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Strong Support Textbook case application of BLP1E. Given that he's likely going to be sentenced for life (or otherwise) for this, he's not going to have any other likely events to give him notability. If perchance someone were to create a detailed psychological profile and publish it as a book there might be something for a separate article, but BLP1E trumps anything else right now. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Also to add: the current Aurora shooting article is short enough to include the first section of this article about Holmes' past prior to the incident within it. I don't believe any of the above merge supports are suggesting deleting this information. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC) As I've just said above, the biography section runs at 658 words. We could merge it without losing a single byte. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Addendum: using Dr.pda's prosesize tool: Aurora shooting is 8.4KB/1,400 words, biography section is 4KB/658 words. Way below the size suggested to split (40KB of prose). Article can easily be merged without losing a byte or running the risk of overburdening the article with biographical details (though I think the current coverage is too invasive to comport with BLP). Sceptre (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Support. Until more is known about him and a spinoff of his biography is required by WP:SS, most material in this article pertains to the attack rather than to his biography proper; this creates the risk of duplicatiing text and effort.  Sandstein  14:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Strong Oppose. As stated before, numerous and detailed articles exist on other identified perpetrators for many other single events. Such articles provide valuable case studies for examining their motives. --Cheesemeister (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose: There is enough material to warrant a separate article, with much more to come. The main article will become too long with all details about the shooter included. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Being one of the most prolific spree-shooters within the United States' entire history, the profile and details of this person (James Holmes) will certainly look better and be more efficient on its own page. Also, when looking back at other situations such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Norway attacks, they are similarly divided into a "shooter" article and a "event" article. This format is just better overall, less cumbersome, et cetera. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Strongly Oppose - This is a high-profile case, and it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. This was the largest mass shooting in American history and thus the shooter warrants an article.--Ðrdak (T) 17:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Strongly Oppose - To merge this would be inconsistent with other persons connected to "events" such as the Norwegian attacks - we have an article for Anders Breivik so why not this article? However, I would say move to James Holmes, again, for consistency. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Comment I have already given my opposition on policy grounds above. I would like to expand that with another reason to oppose a merge. We are written by the readers and this encyclopedia is written for the readers. I feel that it would look terrible on our part to not have an article on James Holmes, a person who the media and readers have clearly decided is significant/notable. Note the 153,000 readers who have viewed this article. This encyclopedia is written for them and exclusion of the material could hurt the credibility of this project more than anything else we could do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC) support merge From an inclusion policy/guideline viewpoint I think this it is fairly obvious we can have an article. WP:ONEEVENT says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I feel this is a highly significant event (as evidenced by the massive coverage) and it's clear his role is a large one. WP:BLP1E says "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" and is basically the same as the above. It isn't clear that the subject's role is yet "well-documented" but it is certainly documented in a lot of source (just not clear ones yet). WP:CRIME requires that "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Given that the execution of the crime is unique (in numbers etc.) this seems to be clearly met. The next question is if there is some reason outside of our inclusion policy/guidelines to merge the article. And there are a few. One is that we really don't know much about the person or his motivations. That's a pretty strong argument really. We shouldn't be writing an article, especially a negative BLP, on a subject where we don't have a whole lot of actual data. Another, and much weaker argument, is that we shouldn't be rewarding people with articles for doing something horrible. I actually believe that (I'd hate to learn he did this just to get a Wikipedia article for example...) but it flies in the face of our own policies (not censored) and so is at best an IAR argument. Finally, there is the fact that 153,000 folks have viewed the article. I think they'd be fine with a section in the event article. So policy wise we may have an article, but I don't think we yet have enough reliable, relevant and sourced information to require we spin the article out from the event article. So I support the merge for now more or less per Sandstein/WP:SS. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC) If the article would be merged, I'm pretty sure a lot of information would be lost in the process, because some might claim, maybe rightfully so, that info-bits A, C and X are not relevant in the context of the shooting, while they may be relevant in the context of Holmes' biography. Others might claim WP:UNDUE, if the biography-section becomes too long for their tastes (has happened to me once), which would also risk a loss of relevant information. Overall, having an article about the perpetrator now would give editors a lot more leeway to add information. And that we don't know much about the perp atm might be a little bit speculative, because a lot of stuff might've been already reported that can not be added due to the locking of the article. And even if there's not too much to work with right now, chances are high that more details will emerge in the coming days. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) Oppose Sooner or later he will become a notable individual guys, also this decision to vote on to merge or not was made too fast, give this case and his psychological profile some time to unfurl for the answer lies ahead. (22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkspartan4121 (talk • contribs) Sooner or later is irrelevant. The question is does he merit a standalone article now?, and it's pretty clear he doesn't. Once again, WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid rationale. IShadowed (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC) "Oppose" The shooting is a topic. The person 'alleged' to have done it is a topic. Note that the "beltway sniper" is broken up into the "event" and the two snipers (and others) Alanbrowne (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This is a high profile person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.171.215 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Now that the article exists, it is virtually impossible to merge it or delete it. What should have happened is that the article should not have been created in the first place. What should happen now is, the editor who created the article should feel appropriately troutslapped for violating BLP1E and CRYSTAL -- alongside every admin who noticed the redirect but didn't simple fullprotect it for the time being, thereby inviting this easily preventable wikitypical snafu. --213.168.117.36 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose, it was only a matter of time before his article was created, based solely on whether the content could reasonably fit into the massacre article. any and all information on his background not directly pertinent to the massacre should be in an article about him, and we have just enough now to justify his bio. Any and all arguments about BLPIE, or not honoring a bad person, are irrelevant. BLPIE is designed to keep trivial single events from being used to incorrectly justify a biography. this incident is obviously not trivial, so BLPIE doesnt apply.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Merge Totally agree with the merge arguments (BLP1E and CRYSTAL). I wish wikipedia authors would have a bit of restraint and not write this guy's biography before they bury the people he killed. --MarsRover (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Your policy objections don't hold; neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:PERP apply, only WP:BIO1E does. See Talk:James Eagan Holmes#The applicable policies. As to the rest, writing about the guy is honoring him? Don't you think the idea of an encylopedia is to collect facts others can use to learn things? There is nothing to learn in this case? For none of our readers? Ajoykt (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Who said anything about "honoring"? It should be CRYSTAL clear that the argument is based on the fact that it is way too early to gauge Holmes' lasting notability. Therefore, it was too early to create this article. It has nothing to do with "honoring" your strawman, and everything to do with properly writing and maintaining an encyclopedia (and not treating the project like an indiscriminate info dump). --87.79.227.72 (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC) To Ajoykt, the answers to your questions are "I didn't say that", "Yes", "Yes it possible to learn a lot from this case. Luckily we already have an article about the case.", "Yes the readers perhaps can learn something from the case. Like gun control, movie theater security, etc". Thanks anon, you and I are in total agreement. We must convert the masses. --MarsRover (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose. Merging would be entirely inconsistent with precedent established by other mass murderer articles such as Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Jared Lee Loughner, and Anders Behring Breivik. —Lowellian (reply) 05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia consensus doesn't run on precedents. We decide case by case unless we specifically settle on a categorical classification. The other articles you cited have no relationship with this one in terms of community consensus. Just because you see a superficial similarity does not make those cases "the same". Also, prematurely creating articles is a bad habit anyway. How could we and why would we excuse questionable editorial judgment with other examples of questionable editorial judgment? --87.79.227.72 (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC) The precedents show that that the community already has settled on a consensus to keep articles on suspects in widely-reported recent mass murders. We should indeed avoid questionable editorial judgments -- such as merging away perfectly valid and encyclopedic articles. —Lowellian (reply) 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC) As WP:WAX says: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." To say that there is only a 'superficial similarity' between this case and the others is, well, your opinion. Other people might see it differently. I know that I do. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)) Oppose The guy is notable enough for his own article sadly. The other article can focus on the actual shooting and victims, this one can focus on him.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC) No, he is not notable at all outside of this single event. Therefore, the information about him must be appropriately incorporated into the article about the event. --87.79.227.72 (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC) No, it doesn't have to be incorporated into the article about the event. The relevant guidelines aren't as clear as you might want them to be and opinions are digressing, as you can see here. Talking in absolutes, when there are none isn't really forwarding anybody's cause. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)) You're only presenting your opinion, against good arguments from many people. I therefore have no choice but to assume that you are resistant to and in fact not even interested in arguments. The entirety of your input can safely be ignored for the final outcome of the merge discussion, and it should be. --87.79.107.90 (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Support. Evening Scribe (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose The killer may have had an accomplice - elsewhere within this talk section are three witnesses that state that there was an accomplice. Merger is prejudging the outcome of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) How does having an accomplice affect the merger of this article? He didn't have an accomplice anyway. United States Man (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Support --Robotunicr0n (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Strong Opposition to Merger Too often articles that would stand alone on World Book Encyclopedia are merged on Wikipedia. Why? That is a good question. As such I oppose any further mergers on Wikipedia. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary Section Break 3 Support Merge - He kept a very low profile and did nothing notable prior to this event. As the media reported, he almost no digital footprint. Therefore, his bio in a separate article and his bio within the shooting article are likeley to be nearly identical due to the lack of notable bioagraphical data. --User101010 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Strong Oppose - He is hugely notable after this indecent. People are undoubtedly interested in his upbringing and overall background. That information will not mesh well on the 2012 Aurora Shooting page. Keep it separate, as is routine for these high profile cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systematic1 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Support. Interesting remarks from Hobit below. (1) Those citing WP:ONEEVENT have to explain why "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." does or doesn't apply. Significance of the event: I suppose Wikipedia-style significance (how much it's talked about) is what's meant. Currently high. The Onion dares to suggest that it will soon be low. Homilies will be recited, the issue of military firearms discreetly not explored, sociopaths and others will continue to go on rampages. (As for actual significance, well, as of three years ago about a hundred people died in the US every day from (mostly unglamorous) traffic accidents.) His significance within the incident: As I understand it, he is the prime, sole, and indeed obvious suspect. However, he isn't known to have claimed responsibility, let alone been convicted. So we don't know what his role was. Moreover, he's alive and (seemingly) well, so presumably the legal system will determine what his role was. (2) Those citing WP:BLP1E have to address "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" does or doesn't apply. Again, the significance is moot and the individual's role within it is a matter for the judicial system. (3) Those citing WP:CRIME need to address "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" does or doesn't apply. So far we know nothing about the motivation for the crime. If the accounts I've read of it are accurate and the suspicions are correct, its design and execution seem rational. ¶ Meanwhile, I see no sign in the article that Holmes has any significance outside this mass-murder. Merge. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose - I agree "while it could be argued that the only reason this alleged psycho is notable now is because of this one act (or one set of acts on July 19-20), and he's simply part of the subject of the shooting, and not notable otherwise, let's face it...every mass murderer gets his own article anyway at some point, so why not now? At this point it could go either way, but if one is honest, it won't be an "either way it can go" type situation forever. The Columbine murderers have their own separate stand-alone articles. This loser Holmes is really no different, and in a way more notable. Since he single-handedly perpetrated chaos on a scale surpassing anything else (At least 70 casualties in one day, not to mention that booby trap nightmare at his apartment.) So no merging. He seems to be unfortunately stand-alone enough. And if not now, very soon will be anyway". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.165.249 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Support per WP:ONEEVENT. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 03:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose -- Each time a spree or serial killer pops up, there is this same discussion on WP: Should he have a seperate bio article (and thus be treated as a "hero") or should he be dealt with only within the article about his murder(s)? Almost each time this happens, the "separate bio" position wins. Why is that ? Probably because in such events, however horrible, it is the personality of the killer which is interesting. We ask ourselves: "Why did he do this?", "How did this guy become a killer?". Each of these cases offers a rare glimpse into such apsects of human nature that are usually hidden under the mask of social normalcy. Having a dedicated article for such people is not to treat them as heroes but as freaks of nature that deserve study. Fi11222 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Strong Support Kind regards, Klaas ‌ V 13:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC) All criminals their own article especially after one act yet? No way Strong Oppose the articles should not be merged. The shooter in one of the worlds worst mass shootings should have its own article. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC) The shooter [...] should have its own article. -- He should have "his own" article, whatever that means, but you're neutering him? Sorry, couldn't resist. At any rate, "should" is a very weak position to argue from. We should imho arrange info in the most encyclopedically sensible way. For a crime where there is very little to no information about the shooter which is unrelated to that crime, we shouldn't maintain separate articles. If, only if and only when relevant material surfaces that couldn't plausibly be integrated into the main article, we can then discuss splitting off an article about the shooter himself. --87.79.107.90 (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge. BLP subject known for only one event, with virtually nothing known for certain about the individual until the trial is finished. That we already have a separate article on the subject shows that poor judgment is rampant in this community. This should not have to be subject to a long debate. Our content policies and guidelines–from sourcing to notability–all point directly to a merge as the appropriate option. All other arguments against a merge at this time can only be classified as "I LIKE IT" arguments and should be discarded by the closer. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose per WWGB; this article is inevitable. 201.166.45.119 (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Extreme Oppose -- Nobody cares about the victims, only the killer, as evidenced by even Wikipedia's own policies on notability. The perpetrator has a name and the victim has a number. What a useless discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoulis (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge, per WP:BLP1E. This person is only noteworthy for their involvement with this one event. I fail to see how having a separate article rather than a merged article improves the encyclopedia. Instead, it creates problems due to having to keep overlapping information in both articles in synch. Regarding claims that this event is noteworthy enough to deserve articles for multiple aspects of the event, that generally applies to events like 9/11 and presidential assassination attempts, not (regrettably common) mass shootings. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Support merge Per WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT. Edison (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Discussion How long does it take to make a decision about this article. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Until established consensus can be reached. I'm assuming this one will require a closure by an uninvolved editor after a day or two. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Who won? 189.215.1.7 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC) It is technically not a vote as such, as weight is given to the quality of arguments on each side. That being said, I see 31 requests to merge and 41 opposing merge, as of this moment. Since the arguments on both sides seem to be fairly consistent among participants, I think sheer numbers are going to end up deciding this in the end. But there will be probably another day or two of comments and the balance could still swing the other way. We will just have to wait it out. Safiel (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC) While the arguments are consistent among each agreeing side (ie, someone who supports is likely to use the same rationale as someone else who supported, and the same with oppose votes), the merit of those arguments are not necessarily the same. I really don't think the number of votes is going to be the deciding factor, seeing as there are a ton of seriously bad oppose rationales and a few seriously bad support rationales. A blanket count of the votes would be asinine. IShadowed (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) For example "This guy is notable" isn't a valid oppose rationale. Everyone knows he's notable. The question is where content on him should be included. There are literally opposes using just this rationale, with no regards to guidelines/policy whatsoever. IShadowed (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Who won? -- Either the better arguments won, or we all lost. --213.168.117.36 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I looked carefully at this discussion with an eye toward closing it (yes, I was considering being that brave). The problem is that the two sides are mostly talking past each other and so you are likely to end up with a "no consensous to merge" outcome because neither side is really addressing the other's arguments. There seem to be three main guidelines/polices in play: Those citing WP:ONEEVENT have to explain why "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." does or doesn't apply. Those citing WP:BLP1E have to address "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" does or doesn't apply. Those citing WP:CRIME need to address "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" does or doesn't apply. In all cases, arguments that he is "not famous outside of this one event", or just wave at one or more of the above guidelines are fairly weak. We though we often don't have articles on folks noted for only one event, we do in some situations. The question is if this is one of them. And right now we mostly have just a vote, with few arguments about why this is or isn't a situation were we should have an article on a person notable for only one event. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Note that it is not all. I clearly stated why I believe that WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual makes Holmes notable enough for his own article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Don't forget that those citing WP:BLP1E should also address why they think Holmes is (not) a low-profile individual, because if he's not, all arguments based on WP:BLP1E are simply irrelevant. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) Both of you have raised basically the same point. If I were really closing this I'd have mentioned the essay and that arm of WP:BLP1E to which it applies. I'd frankly concluded that no one had really done a good job of explaining why the quotes I gave were not met for BLP1E and ONEEVENT, but on the other side no one opposing the merge had really directly dealt with justifying that the quote from WP:CRIME was met (The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy). Hobit (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The problem is that both sides are claiming policy in diffrent lights, the fact that Holmes has all the reliable sources and widespread media coverage proves he is a high profile person in this event. This is not about someone who was a mere bank robber - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I'd say a major hindrance in getting people to come to a uniform conclusion here is that too many of those conditions are a matter of subjective interpretation. Do I, for one, think the event is highly significant? Yes I do, and the media frenzy all over the world, not just in the US, tells me, that many people are thinking the same. Is Holmes' role in this event a large one? Some may say no, because he's only a suspect and not yet convicted, whereas I'd say the condition is met, because he's the sole suspect and police says they're sure that nobody but Holmes was involved in planning and commiting the crime. Is Holmes still a low-profile individual? I say no, because his whole life is already under intense scrutiny by hordes of journalists, and even if he would not be convicted, as small as this chance may be, he would remain high-profile, because the police, the media and the judiciary would've made fools out of themselves for presenting and prosecuting an assumed mass murderer that turned out to be none. Just imagine what would happen if it turned out that it wasn't Holmes who killed all those people, that it was a mere coincidence that he was at the scene of the massacre, clad in body armor, armed to the teeth, and with an apartment full of booby traps. There would be an outrage, and Holmes would be in the center of it. Finally, do I think the execution of the crime was unusual? Of course I do. I mean, how often does it happen that somebody storms into a cinema and kills a dozen people, after setting up bombs all throughout his home? As someone who has read a lot about mass murder, and I mean a really big lot, I can tell you with some confidence that it doesn't happen very often, not even in the USA. In fact, I can't remember a similar case at all. But all my opinions aside, and you may call WP:WAX and WP:CRYSTAL all you want, you can't simply ignore the fact that there have been numerous precedents in this whole regard, precedents that have shown A) that a majority of editors on Wikipedia is in favour of keeping articles about notable mass murderers (Again: how often has it to be discussed, before consensus becomes policy? Or do we really want to have this again and again to infinity and beyond?), and B) that there will be continuous coverage about Holmes in the years to come, as has happened to other notorius mass murderers that survived their crimes like Howard Unruh, George Banks, Ronald Simmons, Colin Ferguson, Kip Kinkel, Edward Allaway, Charles Starkweather, you get my point, even if you've never heard of any of them. To say it might be different this time would be pure speculation that has no basis in history. Furthermore, it eludes me why there should be any difference in dealing with serial killers and mass murderers, only because the former have killed their victims over months or years and not within minutes. Both are high profile criminals, but only in cases of mass murder there are these endless discussions, if the perpetrator should have his own article or not. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) An important point to note is that WP:CRIME actually gives a two-stage test, and a lot of editors are only reading the second part. While it's true that "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy", this is only actually supposed to matter once it is established that there is no other existing article that does or could include the (fairly small amount of) encylopaedic material that is currently available about Holmes. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Again exceptions can be made, as the relevant passage reads should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. If this is one of those normal cases or one of the exceptional ones, you decide. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)) "This may be an exception" is not of itself good enough grounds to make something an exception. Formerip (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Sure, but still, exceptions are possible and it's the community who has to decide, if this is one of those cases where an exception should be made. The point is that WP:CRIME doesn't rule out categorically keeping this article.(Lord Gøn (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)) James Holmes quickfails all of the above because of a lack of documentation and conviction. His connection is purely accusatory at this point, and as WP:PERP states, A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. As MZM said, some here should be ashamed of themselves for sacrificing core editing principles in the name of convenience (seriously, how many people have tried to use "the article may exist eventually" as an oppose rationale? Jesus christ, that is so irrelevant. Until he merits a standalone article, he doesn't get one!). Especially in a case like this, where the line is so thin between fact and libel. I can't believe the amount of speculation going on here. As Sceptre said On a point of order, you can't IAR on BLP, or any other Foundation-derived directives. They're there for legal reasons, not to represent agreed practices. IShadowed (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC) First of all, the process of considering not to have an article about Holmes is still ongoing, as you can see, (note that WP:PERP doesn't categorically rule out having an article about him) and obviously there are quite a few people who think he merits an article already. Everybody is entitled to his opinion, of course, but deciding if he merits one or not is subject to anybody's subjective assessment. I don't find the "the article may exist eventually"-rationale that absurd, btw, after all, if the article would've to be split from the main article later anyway, why not keep and improve it now, instead of, say, in two weeks or a month? Last, what kind of 'speculation' are you talking about, and where do you find any libelous content in the article? If there is, point it out, so it can be removed. The fact that he is a suspect in a mass murder can't be it, after all it is just that, a fact, reported by countless trustworthy secondary sources and as long as this fact is presented in a neutral way there shouldn't be any problem with including it. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)) I didn't say reporting he's a suspect is libelous. That would clearly count in the fact category. But the line is very thin in cases like this how much accusatory content can be added as opposed to what can actually be demonstrated. Speculation as in "article may exist sometime in the future" - ie, WP:CRYSTAL. It appears to be a popular argument in this thread. IShadowed (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC) The question to be asking is: how can this article expand without repeating any information that will obviously be in the article about the crime itself? Holmes was young and pretty much all that's in the biography section is all that is encyclopedic about him outside of the crime itself. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but he's likely going to be sentenced to life, so he's not going to have any post-event actions to add to this. Ergo, this article, as to Holmes himself, has grown as far as it can. It doesn't matter how "major" this crime is, all the information about him outside of the crime is tiny, and easily can be merged into the crime article, thus meeting BLP1E and all other policy. The standalone article makes no sense at this time or the immediate future without CRYSTAL balling long-term sourcing. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) We have to merge this - see this cartoon making fun of the media and by implication, us. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Indeed: we're an encyclopedia, not a news source. There are ethical problems in this sort of invasive press coverage, and Holmes, even after the events that have transpired, is still a living person, and we want to pride ourselves on not engaging in unethical practices the rest of the media does. If the rest of the media jumped off a cliff, would we do so too? Sceptre (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Also, from WP:NOT: Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person. So we have policy reasons for not engaging in the "such a quiet boy" invasiveness the media does. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose merge. Agree with reasons of those who are opposed. Social perspectives on Holmes as a figure will undoubtedly occur in later archiving; this does not seem appropriate to put in the article on the event. For example, Holmes likeness has been used to criticize Obama; the Facebook "shock-pages" to support Holmes; and a movement to ban the use of Holmes name and image in media occurred. I do believe the last issue affects talk about the presentation of Holmes on Wikipedia as well. I believe this wiki article will be much like the one for Mark Chapman. Thelema418 (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mugshot

… copyright status and Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion

CBS announcement. Higher resolution here. Colorado police records are public domain ("State agency authored documents are in the public domain.") Lazy eye is much less evident in CU photo and this video but still somewhat evident. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose using a mugshot as a infobox image, according to WP:MUG. There are some images that can be uploaded to describe the subject of the article that can be used under fair use. -- Luke (Talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the extent to which WP:MUG should apply to someone who's only notable for a crime. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To note, the mugshot is up for deletions on commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Fair use strictly says that you can't use images of people that are living. That is why we have so many BLP articles without images. As to WP:MUG, I still don't know why Paris Hilton has one in her article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikicommons category Mug shots of people of the United States contains over 250 mugshot pictures with various licenses. I mention it as a policy research resource. — O'Dea (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll see if there are any Colorado ones in there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Bill Gates has one in his article as well and they have lost the records on what he was arrested for.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Gates said it was speeding, like 120 in a 55 MPH zone. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Full Wikicommons mugshot discussion at File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg. — O'Dea (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

… appropriateness as lead image

Is it appropriate to be using a mug shot as the representative image of a person who is currently only suspected of committing a crime? Its use deeper within the article under discussion of his arrest might be appropriate -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This sick bastard should not have this amount of recognition, especially on a respected, extremely frequently used source of information such as wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.120.107 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

… to provide illustration of dyed hair

Holmes' dye-job is ref'd in this article and deserves a picture for clarification purposes. Clarification is necessary because most news articles, including the basis of this entry, claim that Holmes' hair was dyed red. "Red" sounds like a natural hair pigment, but if you see the mugshot, it is orange and looks unnatural. An image (mug shot or trial photo) would give readers' insight about the dye-job that cannot be captured easily in words. Thelema418 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FAIR does not allow images of living people.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The link pertains to non-free content, but the mugshot is free content. Even if it is non-free content, according to WP:FAIR it is appropriate to use a photo if it relates to commentary in the article and is iconic in illustrating a historical event. Also, if the photo cannot be replaced with a new photo in the future it is fair. There is no reason to expect that a picture of Holmes with the dyed hair will occur again, and it is significant to his being a suspect. Thelema418 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing of merge discussion

Whenever it is the appropriate time to close such a discussion, I'd like to suggest that perhaps an uninvolved admin (ie, someone who has not voiced an opinion here) reviews the support/oppose rationales and closes the discussion as they see fit. I think there could potentially be a lot of bias here (from either side of the discussion), and I'd really like to see this closed by an un-involved party. IShadowed (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If no one edits it by the time the bot archives it then that is taken as a closure I would think. Closed as stale and no consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure someone is just going to take it to AfD, then. At which point, my request above would still pretty much stand. IShadowed (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to actively request an uninvolved administrator to come in and settle the Merge thread as merge, oppose or no consensus. Not sure what noticeboard to make that request, but I will go looking. Safiel (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the request for closure board would be suitable. :) That was easy enough. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for closure has been made. Safiel (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

One more note, I have placed a Do Not Archive Template on the Merge thread, which I will remove once an administrator makes his review. Safiel (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes.23Merge--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the page due to a series of SPA and likely block evading socks attempting to close improperly. Feel free to unprotect once an uninvolved admin as closed it properly. Since I've been protecting and sock blocking, someone else should. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• As the merge discussion has been properly closed by an uninvolved admin, I have removed the semi-protection as it was there only to prevent block evading IPs from improperly closing the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing the merge

Change {{mergeto}} tag at top of article to nothing (that is, delete it). No consensus to merge, and none likely even if we wait a week more.

 Not done Consensus or admin will close it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done (as the closing admin, subsequent to above comment). Manning (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Talk Page archiving was switched from 5 to 2 days

That was done the other day without any explanation. Is that where it's supposed to be? Psalm84 (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is patrolled by people that monitor the size and adjust accordingly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Article title

I hate to bring this up, but my penchant for proper disambiguation compels me to question whether James Eagan Holmes is the best title for this article, per our general naming guideline and naming guideline for people.

First question: If there were no other articles about anyone named James Holmes, meaning that disambiguation was not a concern, would James Eagan Holmes still be the best title for this article? I.e., is the subject best known and most recognizable as "James Eagan Holmes" or as "James Holmes"? Unlike many similar subjects, my own feeling (and I haven't done any research on this) is that he's better known and more commonly referred to as just "James Holmes", and thus that the ideal title would be James Holmes (again, if disambiguation weren't an issue). But if the consensus is that he is best known with the middle name -- in other words, that the average user would be more likely to look for him under James Eagan Holmes than under James Holmes -- then the current title is indeed the best one.

Second question: If James Holmes would be the best title, but we're unable to use that title because of the need to disambiguate, what is the best disambiguated title? Maybe not James Eagan Holmes, per WP:NCP: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." As I mentioned, I have an interest in disambiguation, so my thought is, when people go to the James Holmes disambiguation page looking for this article, what title would be the best for helping them find the article they're seeking as quickly as possible? Will they see James Eagan Holmes and realize that's the right article, or would something like James Holmes (Aurora shooting) be more helpful? (Yes, regardless of the title, there will inevitably in this case be a description of the link on the dab page. But it's my belief that a bad title is one that will always, or almost always, need such a description in order to identify the topic; the more people that can recognize the article's topic immediately going by the title, the better.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My response may be the only sane one you get here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Is Theoldsparkle serious? Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my post didn't make it clear why I thought this was an obvious question to bring up for informal discussion (emphatically not a Requested Move or any other kind of binding decision). You are completely free to avoid reading or participating in this section if you don't find the topic worthwhile enough for your standards. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While not a serious issue at this point, I would support James Eagan Holmes as there has already been at least one notable instance of the public identifying the wrong person with the same first and last name. This is unlikely to happen again in the future, but I believe the Eagan name is being more widely used in sources now, to avoid the taint of the original mis-identification. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

James Holmes (murder suspect)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.223.98 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there will be an acceptable disambiguation for this article until after he is convicted. Until that point, James Eagan Holmes is probably the best solution. Ryan Vesey 16:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would stay with the full name. There seems to be a long penchant in this country for referring to infamous people by their full names (i.e. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray). I don't see any reason not to stay with the current title. Safiel (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

news stories appearing he was being seen by a psychiatrist

Email sent to oversight. Removed talk page entries pending oversight and WMF. Boldly and in good faith.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Restored - please don't remove - there are no TP violations occurring in the following discussion. We're discussing an AP news report. I appreciate your motives but they don't apply here on the TP. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/11364613/

The above link refers to a legal 'gag order'. I boldly removed content pending WMF policy on gag orders.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the psychiatrist story? That's an Associated Press story which is a Reliable Source. I didn't add it into the article, just brought it to the TP for discussion by editors on the best way to incorporate the new info. I think gag orders apply to the defense/prosecution teams and cannot be legally used on the Press. They wouldn't be applicable to an international news org, anyway. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do American gag orders effect the WMF servers in Florida?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Freedom of the Press and all that sort of thing. The gag order was issued to the prosecution and defense to stop leaking info to the media. Leaks will continue to happen-today there was one from one of the suspect's jailers, anonymously. "This isn't Spain you know - this is England!"  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Gag orders are for a direct entity: in this case the University. It affects the reliability of what the news sources. They can only get info from people willing to leak. That info is only one perspective and cannot be checked against other perspectives. From a Wiki perspective, the gag order does not make it illicit to share the info, but makes it difficult to determine what qualifies as fact for the article. Thelema418 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Defense / Prosecution Statements

In the CNN article and AP article, the "psychiatric patient" claim is a move on the part of the defense to protect documents. The prosecution claims that Holmes was not a "psychiatric patient" and this may be fabricated by news outlets (this appears in the CNN article). The issue is currently a contentious issue. Thelema418 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the defense is making a claim to protect documents falls flat, as US law and state law protects medical records. They may not be destroyed nor may they be divulged without a court order. Consider both the Privacy Act of 1974, then add further protection through HIPPA and a few additional laws that current escape my memory. Improper disclosure can easily result in loss of license and civil penalties. Improper destruction can easily result in criminal penalties. Failure to comply with a subpoena again carries penalties. In short, the defense made a claim, now they will have to make a discovery motion, as claims to the press are not reliable for anything early in a case.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the psychiatrist admits that Holmes was her patient (in the familiar sense) in an upcoming interview, etc. then it should be documented. In the meantime there is a debate about this issue. Fact is needed for the wikipedia entry. That's the only reason I'm posting the info. Keep an eye out for things that look speculative. Thelema418 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Lynn Fenton

The AP release on this story features some unusual details about Dr. Lynn Fenton, the medical director of Anschutz's Student Mental Health Services. These details include disciplinary actions taken by the state for self-prescribing and some weird statements about acupuncture. I'm posting it here in case it becomes useful at a later time. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_lDyz8m3VLePnk8xpv07zKCaFxg?docId=883953506ff04481b079fa76082223ee Thelema418 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange - wasn't aware the Air Force had "acupuncturists." HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The temptation to self-medicate is often irresistible to someone who carries a prescription pad and has salesmen regularly providing samples. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan, I had to look that up. Apparently, the US Air Force has been experimenting with battlefield acupuncture. As for the claim of irresistible temptation, that hints of editorialism, Fred. While there is a documented number of cases in medicine where a medical professional gives into temptation, that is a small percentage of professionals. Your statement hints that there is a substantially larger number. You know better than to say such things, Fred! The citation given stated, "Fenton was disciplined by the Colorado Medical Board in 2004 for prescribing herself Xanax while her mother was dying, state records show. She also was disciplined for prescribing the sleep aid Ambien and the allergy medicine Claritin for her husband, and painkillers for an employee who suffered from chronic headaches." That doesn't hint at a significant abuse potential or anything beyond a professional lapse of judgement for her self-prescription and the matter for her husband and employee are typically overlooked if the first instance wasn't on record. The statements on acupuncture aren't firmly attributed to her, though they might be, that is far from certain and most certainly not germane to this article at this time. Now, if someone provided a citation that she espoused acupuncture for the treatment of mental illness, it may become germane.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is some more info about Dr. Fenton and her treatment of Holmes. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing Admin's comments on merge proposal

I've closed the merge debate with the (predictable) outcome of "no consensus". My "back of the envelope" calculations put the vote at 56:43 opposed to the merge. While closing debates is not just a matter of tallying votes, it was pretty clear to me that no consensus had emerged, or was likely to emerge, in favour of merging the two articles. Manning (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the closure. There was a lot to read, and I suspect many other admins might have shied away from the task. WWGB (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit it's not the most fun I've ever had. I'll also reserve the right for my tallies to be imperfect, I only counted once. (But even if I am slightly wrong, they'll be near enough for the 'no consensus' conclusion I drew). Also, had I voted, I would have supported the merge, so I feel pretty comfortable about my objectivity in closing. Manning (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly valid close. I removed protection now that it has been properly closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin response

The current version of this article seems to violate BLP in several ways and serves to "build" a case against the suspect before he's even gone to trial. This will probably go down as another bad close. Looking at the arguments for keeping this vs. merging, I can't see how "no consensus" trumps the arguments for merging. The burden is on those wishing to keep, and they have clearly failed to meet that burden. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The BLP requirement to keep the article neutral (ie. he has not been convicted of anything) is irrelevant to the above "merge/don't merge" discussion. My role was to assess the overall consensus of the community on the merge topic, and I comfortably stand by my assessment. Potential BLP violations (ie "presuming guilt") remain an issue of concern and should obviously be addressed. Manning (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

When you came to your conclusion, did you eliminate the SPA accounts, the "me too" responses (which as far as I can tell is the majority of opposes) and the ILIKEIT opposes? Because when you do that, how do you get "no consensus"? I would like to see the rough numbers because I just don't buy it. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

All we have to do is keep the shooter and the suspect as two different people as I have mentioned numerous times in both articles. They are two different people until there is a conviction. Remove all the material about them from the wrong article they are in and just leave wikilinks/section re-directs between the two articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words, knowing nothing certain about the suspect, we keep building a case against them, using sensationalized media reports that aren't confirmed. This makes sense in what world? Certainly not on Earth. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The prosecution builds a case against the suspect not us. If the sources sensationalize it there is no reason we have to. If you see such in the article then it should be removed and not replaced until consensus is reached on whether to replace it and neutral wording. I mentioned this in the other article about the suspect section. Some editors may wish to remove it and just leave a wikilink, others may wish to copy/paste this whole article into it. I have yet to see a response over there on how it should be dealt with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD

I should note that it would probably be proper, now that the merge discussion has closed, to take this article to AfD, as there is obviously a substantial segment of editors that wish to see this article deleted. Safiel (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be a waste of time. They will just debate forever and never find enough policy to delete it. Deletions go by policy points countered, not votes. Many may consider it disruptive if tagged as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast. I don't think this article would survive AfD if the discussion was properly vetted, and looking at the sources, every significant data point we have on Mr. Holmes is covered in the parent shooting article. We really can't have a bio article on this guy until the trial is over. Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be a waste of time. Of course, it may end up as no consensus again, maybe not. It would not be disruptive. Now if the merge discussion had ended as an unambiguous keep, an AfD could be considered disruptive. But since the merge discussion was ambiguous, I don't think an AfD tag could be considered disruptive. If people want to battle this out in AfD, I don't have any problem with them doing so, although personally I am still leaning toward keep. Safiel (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see spending a lot more time discussing whether this article should be kept, merged, or deleted to be a best use of the community's time and resources. Typically, we want to avoid having too many articles about the lives of either one-incident criminals or one-incident crime victims because it is often difficult to write reasonable biographical articles on such people given that the sources will focus specifically on the one incident, and also because of the policy considerations inherent in the biographies of living persons and undue weight policies. Given the extraordinary notoriety of this particular individual and mass-murder, it is somewhat fictive to apply these policies reflexively as if this were a more ordinary sitaution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Only problem is, this bio is almost a complete duplicate of the 2012 Aurora shooting article. There's nothing here worth keeping. Since there's no reason to have this separate article, why do we have it? Best practice is to merge smaller articles on the same topic with the parent. This article consists of only 5954 characters (989 words). If this was any other bio, we wouldn't even be talking about it—we would merge without thinking about it. But because this guy is a mass killer we suddenly ignore best practices? Sorry, that makes no sense. Viriditas (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure that the article would not survive an AfD, as in similar cases the article was kept. Anyway, deleting the article would be counterproductive, because keeping it as redirect would be necessary no matter how the poll would end. And as not all the relevant information about Holmes is present in the article about the shooting (contrary to what you say, there's little duplicate and quite a bit is missing in the article about the shooting), the question would again be merge or no merge. And since the proposal of merging has just ended in no consensus, with both sides battling over the interpretation of guidelines and policies, I don't see how an AfD could look any different. And that the article is too short, well, I think that's a very subjective opinion. At least it's longer than some of the articles about the lesser known assassins in this list.(Lord Gøn (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

Tell me what relevant info is missing from the parent article. The AfD would look different because it would require much more than "counting" votes, and it would discard the numerous METOO, ILIKEIT, and OTHERSTUFF votes that clutter up this page. Viriditas (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, pretty much the entire Biography-section is missing in the article about the shooting. You could say, of course, that most of it is not relevant in context of the attack itself, though it is relevant in the context of Holmes' biography, which is one reason why I am of the opinion the article should be kept. I think it is pretty certain that most of that info would get lost should it be merged or deleted. I'm not sure though that an opinion can be discounted simply because it doesn't reiterate all the arguments presented before and is reduced to the most basic statement like keep or merge. After all, it can be assumed that they agree with any argument in favour of their opinion. Anyway, the arguments presented make fairly clear that the same guidelines and policies are used to either defend keeping, or merging the article. And who decides which interpretation is the correct one? You? Me? The admins? Or maybe the majority? Could it be that either way this would've ended in a majority vote? (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

Does this happen often enough that we should create a pre-AfD discussion tag and then if consensus is reached we can use a full Afd one or should we create an intermediate one as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's called a {{prod}}. Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding {{prod}} to this would be disruptive. "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is a candidate for uncontroversial deletion". Ryan Vesey 16:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We may need another tag or 5 then. I am going to go make some templates then--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anything else is needed. Consensus is not needed to take an article for AfD and I don't see a reason for pre-AfD discussions. In any case, make sure whatever you are doing is supported by policy. Ryan Vesey 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If anybody plans to tag again, please create a separate page for the discussion and link to it. Otherwise, one has to question whether the change is in good faith. These discussions completely mess up this talk page. 130.65.109.101 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• AFD, by its very nature, is an admission that the deletion is likely contested, so no consensus or advance notice is required, only good faith. Keep in mind, any new "tag" would not be recognized as valid, as it wouldn't be an official process, where as PROD, CSD and AFD are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Where do i submit my new tag? User:Canoe1967/Template/Pre-Afd? (kidding)--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just my two cents but I would be fully opposed to a AfD deletion of this article for many reasons including the ones put forward here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as being opposed to an AFD. You can oppose a deletion, but you cannot oppose the discussion of a deletion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry thats what I was meaning to say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

PHD Studies Labs and Course Work

There was not much on what Holmes was studying at the university, the courses he took, and the labs he attended. Specifically, what kind of biological materials was he in contact with during his lab work and what fields was he specializing? According to a Dr. of psychology from Colorado, a person at Holmes education level would have been doing a lot of lab work and the university is looking into that aspect. He also said it is not unusual for a mental break down to happen this quickly, but it is not the norm. 204.153.240.130 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the info box states that Holmes holds a Bachelor of Science, but U.C. Riverside's neuroscience department offers both a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science. All the news articles I have read only state that he has a "degree in neuroscience", but do not state what type. I am marking this for verification. Thelema418 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed today that UC Riverside has a site for PR releases with James Holmes. This contains a direct confirmation of his degree and years at the school. It might be useful for cleaning up some citations to multiple news releases about his education. http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/tag/james-holmes Thelema418 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Holmes referred to threat assesment team by psychiatrist

The University of Colorado Denver psychiatrist seeing accused murderer James Eagan Holmes was so alarmed by his behavior that she notified the campus-wide threat-assessment team that she helped create years before, a source told The Denver Post.

Read more: James Holmes referred to University of Colorado threat-assessment team, sources say - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21212797/alleged-theater-gunman-was-referred-threat-assessment-team#ixzz22P405YOe

WP:FORUM : if true, likely puts significant legal/financial liability on the Uni if they did not follow up appropriately. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Section Detention and cour appearance

Change the very last sentence of the section:

Holmes answered "yes" when the judge asked if he agreed to waive his right to a 
preliminary hearing within 35 days.[59][60]

to

Holmes agreed in court to waive his right to a preliminary hearing in 35 days.[59][60]

The exact words he used isn't relevant; nor is the mechanics of usual courtroom procedures (the judge asks; defendant answers).

Done Rivertorch (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Infobox reference for BS in Neuroscience degree

Change

Reference #1

to

The current ref #1 is used in just one place. While there is nothing wrong with it, the UCR reference, as noted by an editor above, is more solid.

Done. Mdann52 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: remove poorly sourced text in Biography/background

Change

When he graduated from college, the only job he could find was working at a McDonald’s,
a situation which caused him distress. 

to

<Nothing>

ie., delete it. A websearch of National Enquirer, the citation reference source, gives, as their official summary of themselves: "Celebrity gossip, scandals, and the latest from Hollywood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.176.97 (talk • contribs)

 Done by Psalm84. -— Isarra ༆ 15:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

Wouldn't it be more acceptable to post the conviction charges after media coverage has died down?184.98.143.25 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Why? WWGB (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

He has not been convicted; the article shows arrest charges. Do you mean arrest charges? Thelema418 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean Up - "Actions Prior to ... "

I was stepping through the references on "Actions Prior to..." and it looks like editors are combining articles to produce an account of history that may not be accurate -- or is just cluttering. For example, right now it says "he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle, with a second Glock 22 pistol following on July 6." This is ref'd to a BelleNews.com article, but the only reference to guns in the source is: "Over the course of eight weeks he bought 6,300 rounds of ammunition: 3,000 for a .233 semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, 3,000 for two .40 Glock 22 pistols and 300 cartridges for a pump-action shotgun." There's nothing about July 6 or that Smith & Wesson mfr'd the particular AR-15. Thelema418 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Section Background

Change

"Holmes was born on December 13, 1987,[2] the son of a registered nurse and a mathematician working as 
 a senior scientist.[4][5][6] His father has degrees from Stanford, UCLA and Berkeley.[7] James Holmes was 
 raised in Castroville, "

to

"James Holmes was born . . . his father has degrees from Stanford, UCLA and Berkeley.[7]. 
Holmes was raised in . . ."

Using the full name first and last name later is more common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.178.118 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2012‎ (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Motive

It would make sense to add that his motive is currently unknown (with a reference). Preferably in the lead. That seems to be the major item on the Feedback page.[2] 155.201.35.58 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Should a section about the use of Holmes' likeness in popular culture be addressed? Holmes' image has been used on a billboard to criticize the president. Also there have been FaceBook fan pages for "Holmies", which have generated controversy about FaceBook's guidelines in the media. Tumblr also has several fan pages. There are numerous Internet memes that now involve altered images of Holmes' (particularly the mug shot) with ill-humored captions.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/tech/social-media/facebook-shooter-fan-page/index.html http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21232268/holmies-create-fan-pages-support-alleged-theater-gunman http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/james-holmes-tumblr-holmies-shock-internet/story?id=16901096 Thelema418 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was he

charged with two counts for each victim? 12 dead, 58 wounded, and he faces 24 murder counts and 116 attempted murder counts? Is there a reason for this? 75.94.63.254 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject. If your intention is to propose a change to the article, or discuss some aspect of it, could you please rephrase to make that clearer? Euchrid (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable question, the information is now in the article. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Euchrid, as noted, the question the IP asked is directly relevant to the article. Why do you chide someone for bringing up a reasonable question? --89.0.205.146 (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to mention to readers the reasoning behind doubling each charge in this case. Unfortunately, I can only guess as to why this happens and although I may be close with my guess, that isn't useful in this case. I would love for someone to enlighten us all and add it to the article. Anyone? LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it's in the article. "The multiple charges expand the opportunities for prosecutors to obtain convictions. For each murder, one count included murder with deliberation, the other murder with extreme indifference." If one charge fails, they can still get him on the other. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since these two sets of charges are mutually exclusive (per each individual killing) and Holmes will be convicted of at most 12 of these 24 counts, can these be considered 24 separate counts in a meaningful way? --87.78.136.142 (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that that is how reliable sources describe them. It's not up to us to interpret how many charges there are, merely report what others have said. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes logical sense to file the 24 charges, since his motives are apparently unknown. At the trial, they will decide which charges apply. Meanwhile, I don't understand why there's a separate page on this guy, since the only thing he's known for is the shooting. Wouldn't it be sufficient to cover both entities in the same article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Debated and lost: Talk:James Eagan Holmes#Merge. WWGB (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

More like filibustered by people with no valid arguments. Merge is still the correct move, even if a majority of people unsuitable for active participation in an encyclopedic project doesn't like it. "Lost" is only your credibility as an editor if that is how you describe the outcome of any Wikipedia discussion. --87.79.134.131 (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.236.173 (talk)

Actually, it'd be attempted murder and murder (class undefined per the article, 1, or 2...) NOBODY BOTHERED to investigate the sources to improve the article, instead preferring to chide one another over various grounds unrelated to the event that is the ARTICLE. There was zero attempt at improvement or change of the article, only argument. Only further proving the media view that Wikipedia is beyond unreliable. I only came here because some things read a bit off in the article. YOU tended to disparage ANY utility of Wikipedia!Wzrd1 (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

PHD Studies Labs and Course Work Archive Question

"There was not much on what Holmes was studying at the university, the courses he took, and the labs he attended. Specifically, what kind of biological materials was he in contact with during his lab work and what fields was he specializing? According to a Dr. of psychology from Colorado, a person at Holmes education level would have been doing a lot of lab work and the university is looking into that aspect. He also said it is not unusual for a mental break down to happen this quickly, but it is not the norm. 204.153.240.130 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)"

• "what kind of biological materials was he in contact with during his lab work". Was there a possibility Holmes was infected during his studies?Septagram (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for (Speedy) Deletion

Holmes has no notability outside the shooting, the article on him needs to be deleted! The article is in Violation of WP:BLP1E the fact that he is the Sole Suspect of the Aurora 2012 Shooting makes him not eligible for a stand-alone article WP:BLP1Eis equal to anybody alife or death! To my understanding and logic if a victim is not eligible for an article then the suspect is neither! Fox2k11 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

According to your (emotional) logic, we should not have an article on Mohamed Atta unless we have an article on every one of the 2996 victims of 9/11. WWGB (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

what a comparison 9/11 has a larger magnitude then this ever will have and nope that's not my point for 9/11 atta could be mentioned in the Main article but has no need to create a sole article about him! or any other Perpetrator of a major crime!

Fox2k11 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You are probably technically correct on WP:BLP1E however, that policy does contain specific exceptions for when individuals are significantly involved, which probably applies in this case. You are absolutely incorrect on victims vs perpetrators - quite often the perpetrator is more notable than their victims, especially (as in this case) when the notability of the victims is diluted across many victims. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At least one Victim is significantly notably and there was worldwide news coverage about this person ( See talk page for the shooting about that)but yet this person is not notable enough but the suspect is?! currently this article is needless trivia about the past of the suspect a section in the Main shooting Article is Plenty and Appropriate but not a full article (at least not yet) Fox2k11 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Biographical information is not needless trivia. If you feel that articles are lacking, I suggest you attempt to create them, but I am not sure that any of the victims will meet the notability requirements. Ryan Vesey 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I did that already and i pointed already some valid points that make that person Notable but yet it's obviously not enough but thats not the point on this talk page Currently this article is lacking true encyclopedic material which maybe is available someday to deserve a full article! Fox2k11 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What information is lacking from this article and why is deletion preferred over improvement? Ryan Vesey 14:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

like mentioned on the deletion page It's a content fork of the main shooting article and the biography part is just a merged news articles that anybody can find on the net and is nothing worth for an encyclopedia! Deletion over Improvement because there is no real Information about him available that is worth a Full article! unless the Case Gag-order has been lifted you won't get any Realiable information about him! Fox2k11 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What sort of real information are you looking for? This information isn't fake. It provides information on his life and background. That is what a biography is. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't say it's fake it's just a needless trivia about his past w/o consistency for now there is no need of this article once we know about his motive and other Personal information about him a Article would be O.K! Fox2k11 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There might be some trivia, but certainly it isn't all trivia, and most of it is basic information that should be present in any biography, be the subject a criminal or a president. To call it a content fork of 2012 Aurora shooting would require the article to contain significant amounts of duplicate information which is not the case, and it is certainly long enough already to stand on its own, so I don't see any need to merge it all back into the article about the shooting, where most of it would probably be deleted by someone claiming WP:UNDUE, or something like that. Besides, all articles on Wikipedia (should) consist of information that can be found somewhere else, because everything has to come from reliable sources. After all, secondary sources are what Wikipedia is built on. To cite this as a flaw of the article is pretty weird. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC))

Wiki's deletion policy is absurd! This is a matter of public record. Delete the Wiki entry and where do historians and researchers go? To a hodge-podge of newspaper articles? ARCHIVE if you must. DELETE never! Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dave, nothing actually gets completely deleted, except for a very limited amount of material that can only be seen by oversighters, deleted material can be seen or undeleted by administrators and researchers can view the history of deleted pages but not the content. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion would be asinine; the incident is - sadly enough - sufficiently notable to qualify as a historical record, exceeding as it does the actual toll of victims from the 1966 University of Texas tower shooting. Might as well nominate Mark David Chapman or John Hinkley for deletion as well, by that logic.ScouterMick (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

On the Deletion discussion page some one explained it to me why holmes has his own page and why it's appropriate so I have to admit that my Nomination for Deletion was wrong but still with good faith I want express my Apology to the editors and hope you are lenient with me! thanks --Fox2k11 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

its no problem =) Ask any editor, almost all of us have im sure made a move on wikipedia that we came to regret im glad you came to know your mistake here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks =) --Fox2k11 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He was adopted?

According to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178304/James-Holmes-Gunman-used-police-evidence-bags-hand-puppets-mother-admits-feared-disturbed-years.html, Holmes was adopted. "According to reports, the neuroscience graduate was adopted and Mrs Holmes, 58, and husband Robert, 61, a software developer, raised him as one of their own." 08:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.94.220 (talk)

See Talk:James Eagan Holmes/Archive 1#Please change, suspect was not "born to" these parents, he was adopted. It seems a contested assertion. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, we can not include information that is uncertain. Richard-of-Earth (talk)

On the "List of Rampage Killers"?

I noticed that there's a "see also" heading and a List of rampage killers link. Holmes is also actually listed on that page. It lists him as a "perpetrator" but also says "Suspect arrested, trial pending." Since he hasn't been convicted, though, doesn't some of this violate Wikipedia policy? Psalm84 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope he is the (Alleged) Suspected Perpetrator till he is convicted! Fox2k11 (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this page has a link that says "list of rampage killings," but it actually goes to "list of rampage killers," and Holmes is listed there. Maybe that listing needs to be fixed in some way since it calls him both a perpetrator and a suspect.Psalm84 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a question about it on the "list of rampage killings" talk page. Psalm84 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Photograph Question

Why is there no photo for the James Holmes article but there is for the Wade Page article? These events occured 15 days apart and one has a photo of the perp and one doesn't, what is the reason for this? Seems like there should be a policy of either posting a photo of the perpetrator or having none. Personally I think there should be none. Kardthrow (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends--is there a free (non-copyrighted) photo of Holmes? If not, we can't add one, because we don't allow fair use photos of living people. Since Wade Page is dead, we are more lenient about Fair Use (since there it's impossible to get a replacement). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Police Dept released a cropped mug shot; by US standards this photograph falls under fair-use doctorine in terms of copyright. The dye-job is discussed in the article, but this characteristic is better seen in a picture. However, no picture taken before the event nor later in Holmes' life is likely to be a suitable replacement to show the characteristics of the dye-job. Thelema418 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mug shot of Holmes. Thelema418, my research is finding a lot of conflicting information about the copyright status of mug shots. Also noted some jurisdictions exempt material from on-going cases from public domain. I agree about the fair-use case for the red hair, however he has appeared in court/public so theoretically someone could attend court and take a picture(?), unless private camera are restricted from the court room (probably). Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The police mugshot has been used, repeatedly, in broadcast and print media, without copyright information; under both the fair use doctrine, as well as abandonment of copyright, it's fair game, and in my humble opinion, would not violate the standards regarding photos of living people, but I realize this is a complicated issue, especially when the gag order and his legal presumption of innocence are taken into account.ScouterMick (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The mugshot is probably public domain already as it was craeted by a government entity, we have just not been able to prove it sufficiently to conform with policy. There is no such thing as "abandonment of copyright", although there is a similar concept for trademarks. A copyright holder can sue/press charges at any time regardless of inaction in previous circumstances. Further, "fair use" as defined for a newspaper/tv show is different than for wikipedia. Wikipedia content is "free", including free for reuse in commercial or non-encyclopedic uses, so if we use that photo, we are promising downstream users that they may do what they want with it. (That is not to say that there is not a valid fair-use reasoning that could be used here, merely that "it was used in media" is not such a valid reason.) Beyond the copyright, WP:BLP is going to push against using the mugshot per WP:MUG Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already added the mugshot of James Holmes on the page. Heymister14 (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)heymister14

The university of Colorado also released a picture of James Holmes see http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Documents/PDF/JamesHolmes.pdf maybe it can be used --Fox2k11 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

there is a new booking picture it has just been tweeted! https://twitter.com/DenverChannel/status/248907613536919553 --Fox2k11 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't use that new photo, it doesn't comply with the FUR. Ryan Vesey 01:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

the current Mugshot is from the same source so why this one meets and the other not? --Fox2k11 (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The new mugshot is from the same source as the current one and also probably Public domain since it has been created and released by a US-Goverment Agency if you think the picture does not meet the non-free policy then you have to delete the current with his red hair as well because then it would not meet non-free policy either way (same source) so I'm going to updating the current mugshot (again) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/james-holmes-mugshot-new-_n_1902296.html --Fox2k11 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please self-revert based on the comment I left on your talk page, otherwise I'll need to go find broader discussion and that just seems like a whole lot of trouble that neither of us want to go through for the same result. Ryan Vesey 12:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)